[Closed] New 'newspaper' laws cover STW too, it seems

STW Towers had better stop hacking our voice mail accounts proto......

'A substantial proportion of which' - nice to see that the lawyers are making sure there is enough future work guaranteed to fill in the gaps.

until Mr Chipps [i]et al[/i] send the hamsters on a one-way trip to the US where their publication is protected by the First Amendment.

The Hamsters are barely able to turn their wheel as it is, I think a long haul flight might kill them off for good....

[quote=Stoner ]until Mr Chipps et al send the hamsters on a one-way trip to the US
Or Scotland

I've got long lense pictures of a pregnant Hora sunbathing topless with Prince Harry on his private beech.

Can I not post them up then? 🙁

private beech

Is that in Windsor Great Park?

I'm worried that beech may not be a spelling mistake and may instead be a euphemism to describe a twig thin article.

No... Ikea 😉

hora, earlier;

[img] [/img]

just read about that here http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/article/11188

looks like twitter and Facebook are covered by that definition, too.

STW? Current Affairs?!

It's going to be a nightmare. Veteran forum complainers will be contacting the new body once every five minutes with various spurious whinges.

So we can look forward to more incidences of people being prosecuted for daft comments on Twitter, while Business As Usual carries on at News International 🙄

While I've still got the chance, can I just call Hugh Grant a massive W**. HELLOOOO HUGH GRANT! YOU'RE A MASSIVE W**!

[i]While I've still got the chance[/i]

As long as you have proof I think you'll stillbe able too.

I've got long [s]lense[/s] lens pictures...

FTFY

ah, ok. A Notting Hill or Four Weddings and A Funeral DVD will suffice.

Always match their other hand...

There is a new specific offence of 'not liking Love Actually' in the Royal Charter. It's retrospective - so covers just about everyone in the UK.

This is nothing really new. We've always been bound by the standard rules and laws of defamation and libel as a media organisation. What you post on here is deemed to have been published JOINTLY by yourselves and us. That's why we try and keep an eye on you all 😉

But you have to join this club in order not to face exemplary damages? So differs from current situation.

Law says blogs are included, Downing St briefing journalists that they're not.

So that's all clear then.

yeah, but even an ordinary bod, setting up a blog and photoshopping a big nob on the head of Hugh Grant and calling him nasty defamatory names will now come under the radar even more no? Seems to me they're using the Press Regulation as an opportunity to MOAR regulate the internetz. Can't be having ordinary people getting ideas in their heads and broadcasting them willy nilly. gosh!

It says in the course of a business so most individual's comments will not be covered

While I've still got the chance

As long as you have proof I think you'll stillbe able too.

can't we just turn this into a Hugh Grant bashing thread? pleeeeease?

can't we just turn this into a Hugh Grant bashing thread? pleeeeease?

You mean this chap?

[img] [/img]

So new/issue 80. Whats that full suss on one?

STW? Current Affairs?!

Is this a new forum section for threads by people with an anonymous login detailing their relationship woes?

And therein lays the problem with press regulation, even if some of the journalists are scumbags that behave appallingly everyone gets tarred with the same brush and legislated against.

maybe what's interesting is what's termed "press" or "newspapers" or "journalists" anymore? They sound like very outmoded words to me. If you've got a website with a million hits everyday or something. what's the difference?

even if some of the journalists are scumbags that behave appallingly everyone gets tarred with the same brush and legislated against.

Page last updated at 17:22 GMT, Monday, 18 March 2013
MP's stolen phone accessed by Sun

The Sun newspaper has apologised in the High Court for accessing private information on a stolen mobile phone belonging to a Labour MP.

Police told Siobhain McDonagh her text messages had been accessed after her phone was stolen in October 2010.

The Sun, which has not admitted the theft of the phone itself, is to pay the MP "very substantial damages".

The court has heard "possibly hundreds" of new claimants are seeking damages from the now defunct News of the World.

The hearing is the latest in a series before Mr Justice Vos relating to civil damages claims brought by people from all walks of life over the phone-hacking scandal.

I believe that youtube, twitter facebook et al, and probably these forums all count as self publishing so we could all fall foul of the defamation and libel laws....

I blame Marks glasses. They look [I]evil[/I]

i thought the hamsters had been upgraded, to a team of chipmunks, imported from LA.

No, they were imported back from LA Fitness, after a 3 month boot camp. seems to have worked though, fair do's to the little critters.

As this website is (or at least was) hosted in the US, how is this under the jurisdiction of the new laws?

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.

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.

[i]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. [/i]

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

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

Founder of Mumsnet just tweeted;

[i]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..[/i]

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!!!

[url= http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/relationships/a1385104-Center-Parcs-Anal-sex ]So we'd lose such Gems as this?[/url]

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!!!

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.