Zonked – first post is about defining a media organisation. Where what they publish us stored is irrelevant for that purpose

From the BBC website – which does come under the scope, therefore it must be true…?

The charter defines news publishers as newspapers, magazines or websites containing news-related material.

However, the government had conceded there was some confusion about how the charter applies to some news-based websites. For example, the website of political blogger Guido Fawkes will be exempt as it does not carry out large-scale newsgathering.
So that’s what the government claim the charter is meant to say. But if it actually says something else, we still have confusion.

first post is about defining a media organisation. Where what they publish us stored is irrelevant for that purpose

Really? Because if it’s stored in the US, it’s published there. What’s more, if I generate the content sat at my desk in Australia, where does that fit in? I’d have contributed something from Australia to a website hosted in the US. Just because you happen to read it in the UK makes it no more relevant to UK law than if I’d sent you a letter via the States.

Im interested in seeing how two papers I subscribe to interpret the proposed law: The Spectator and Private Eye. Both have pledged not to join a statute-underpinned regulatory body and I hope they remain outside of this ridiculous law. I also hope they manage to successfully challenge the punitive “all costs charged” clause even when they win defamation cases on grounds of inequitability. No law should penalise defence of innocence.

Just because you happen to read it in the UK makes it no more relevant to UK law than if I’d sent you a letter via the States.

It’s about the company publishing it though. As I say, it’s defining what a media organisation is in the UK, not where the content they have is held or even how it is distributed (print or web).

We publish in the UK. That’s where we are and where the button that says, ‘Publish’ gets pushed. Our servers are in the UK. These two points are not related though.

Just because you happen to read it in the UK makes it no more relevant to UK law than if I’d sent you a letter via the States

For the purposes of defamation law, the content of a website or newspaper which is accessed in England & Wales is litigable in E&W courts, regardless of where it was created. Hence libel tourism.

As for this scheme – I have no idea because i haven’t bothered to read the bill.

Founder of Mumsnet just tweeted;

Just written to Maria Miller’s office to see if Mumsnet caught by the Royal Charter re press regulation – could be very messy if so..

Founder of Mumsnet just tweeted;

Just written to Maria Miller’s office to see if Mumsnet caught by the Royal Charter re press regulation – could be very messy if so..

With any luck that god awful hangout for miserable harridans sharing in each other’s whining will have to shut down!!!

So we’d lose such Gems as this?

Just written to Maria Miller’s office to see if Mumsnet caught by the Royal Charter re press regulation – could be very messy if so..

With any luck that god awful hangout for miserable harridans sharing in each other’s whining will have to shut down!!!
Bit harsh on Maria Miller…

that god awful hangout for miserable harridans sharing in each other’s whining will have to shut down!!!

If that’s the only criteria, we’re in trouble.

Good to see the Evening Standard breaking the budget embargo and tweeting most of the contents. I wonder if that would be covered.