Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Paul Staines, Jamie East, David Allen Green, and Richard Wilson—Oral evidence (QQ 326–
403)
Jamie East: I agree it would be good to know the rules of the game while we are
playing it. It is a bit like herding cats at the moment; it is very difficult to manage. We
endeavour to act as if we were mainstream media. As Paul says, if you have a big story that
is potentially damaging to the individual concerned, you take certain steps. There is a right
to reply; you approach them beforehand; you look for more than one source; but there is
not much mutual respect coming back from the individuals concerned. If there are to be
injunctions and super-injunctions flying round willy-nilly, everyone needs to get it. In the
case involving the footballer, I got it two days later than the mainstream newspapers, which
really is not much use to anybody.
Paul Staines: When we talk about privacy, what we are really talking about is
censorship. Do you want judges to be censors? I do not want to live in a society where
judges are censors. Privacy is just a euphemism for censorship.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I disagree with you there.
Q391 Ms Stuart: When the name Kelvin MacKenzie was mentioned, all I
remember is that his first approach was that you should never let facts get in the way of a
good story. I hope that is not your basic approach. I am intrigued by your line of reasoning.
You appeared to say that newspapers gave you stories that their editors would not publish
because they did not pass their legal departments, but you then prayed in aid great
compliance with all the rules, inasmuch as you could find them out. Are you trying to tell
this Joint Committee that you should be differently regulated from standards applied to
other outlets?
David Allen Green: I would not characterise it in that loaded way. What I would
say is that, if you are to seek to regulate the blogosphere and social media generally, there
are two questions. First, what information are you going to give those who blog and tweet
so they can inform their own conduct? Second, will this regulation be effective?
Q392 Ms Stuart: The starting point for me is whether newspapers, radio,
television and the blogosphere are part of a media that may or may not be regulated, or are
you saying you should be treated differently from those other outlets?
David Allen Green: I would not say “should”, but you may find you need different
regulatory mechanisms to regulate social media from broadcast and publication media.
Q393 Ms Stuart: But the basic approach should be the same?
Paul Staines: I do not agree with my friends. I think we should all be regulated in
the same way and we should be protected. Effectively, I think the only regulation should be
the law of defamation. We do not need the Media Standards Trust, the Press Complaints
Commission and all of these kinds of quangos. I want to have a press that is as free as
possible. I believe that is in the public interest. When we get it wrong, we should pay the
consequences in the court.
1091