Free Speech and the Defamation Bill 2012 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Free Speech and the Defamation Bill 2012 - Essay ExampleThe police of the pack only draws the parameters that the press should confine itself to, when broadcasting information. That libel and privacy justnesss do not wrongly restrain the work of the press is underscored by the fact that the press in its existence and functions does so in out of work of tort. This is to the effect that the press owes the society duty of c ar, when handling information, so that it is obligated to eschew using information in a manner that is injurious to an individual, group or organisations reputation, character or person. Tweed1 posits that the law acknowledges the duty of care that the press owes the society, so that there is no threshold left for dabbling in acts of libel and privacy violations. All acts that govern dissemination by the press do not entertain provisions for libel and privacy violations. For instance, even the Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates the right of the public to feeler information, but this information is limited to that which is held by public authorities and thereby precluding information pertaining to individuals. The Data safeguard Act 1998 also governs the protection of personal information in the UK, and thereby limiting space for slander, traducement and breach of privacy by the press. In like manner, UK Stationery Office2 and UK Parliament3 observe that the Privacy and Electronic communications Regulations 2003 as a UK law legally proscribes the transmission of automated recorded messages, without prior consent of the subscriber. Herein, this law makes it clear that transmission of automated recorded telephone messages for direct marketing purposes outside the subscribers permission is not only an infringement of that subscribers privacy, but is also illegal. That the law on libel and privacy violation does not limit the work of the press, is a matter that is well sustain by the fact that they (the laws) have exceptions that safe guard media practices to the same effect. This is exemplified by the case laws Greene v Associated Newspaper (2004) and Bonnard v Perryman (1893). Particularly, in the latter, the court of law ruled that judges are not to stop defamatory allegations that are circulated, in the event that the would-be publisher is ready to defend them (in a court of law), unless it is express that no defence is to succeed at trial4. Again, the issue of Civil Liberty extends to not only include the immunity of speech, conscience, property ownership, movement and the right to assembly, but also to also include the right to privacy and dignity. Thus, the law of libel and privacy are not in existence to muzzle the media, but exists to maintain the boundaries that outline the freedom of the press and to harmonise it with human freedoms and rights. The Defamation Bill 2012 The idea that the Defamation Bill 2012 is shortsighted to deal with the restrictions on Press freedom is not true, since the bill ha s made provisions that are more(prenominal) in favour of the press than the individual, a group or an organisation. First, the veracity of the standpoint immediately above is premised on the fact that in essence, the Defamation Bill 2012 was chiefly made to strike a poise between the right to protection of reputation and freedom of expression and therefore makes substantive amendments to the law of defamation, without of necessity