FOTP 2013 Full Report

Parliament in December 2009, attracting greater attention to the issue and resulting in a promisein 2010 by the new coalition government to reform libel laws. A bill introduced in Parliament bythe Ministry of Justice in May 2012 was designed to limit lengthy and expensive proceedings,making it easier to dismiss frivolous cases quickly. Under the proposed law, claimants wouldhave to demonstrate that the published material in question caused them “serious,” not justpossible, harm. The measure is also expected to limit the use of English courts by foreignclaimants by excluding those who live outside the European Union (EU), except for cases inwhich “England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring an action.”Campaigners are still calling for a stronger “public interest” defense—currently journalistswould first need to prove that they have been “responsible” in their writing—and betterprotections for internet service providers. As of the end of 2012, the bill had made it through itsthird reading in the House of Commons and was pending in the House of Lords.The 2003 Communications Act prohibits any message from being sent through a publicelectronic communications network that is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, ormenacing character.” In July 2012, the High Court overturned a 2010 conviction against a manwho had written a microblog comment about “blowing the airport sky high.” The presiding judgeruled that the statement was not menacing and had been written out of frustration over flightcancellations. In October, 19-year-old Matthew Woods was sentenced to three months in prisonfor posting allegedly offensive statements on the social-networking site Facebook related to amissing 5-year-old girl. The director of public prosecutors announced in December thatguidelines on prosecuting offensive comments on the internet would be established to rein in thegrowing number of legal cases in recent years.In keeping with EU policy, a 2009 law requires communications service providers toretain certain limited usage records for one year. Intelligence, law enforcement, and otheragencies may access such data—which do not include the content of communications—withoutjudicial permission for a variety of reasons, including crime detection, national security, and the“economic well-being” of the country. However, the system includes procedural and institutionalsafeguards against abuse, and there are departments in place to handle public complaints. A draftcommunications data bill under consideration in 2012 would require internet and telephonecompanies to retain a much greater range of information about online communications, includingon social media, e-mail, mobile phone calls, and voice calls placed over the internet. Theproposed law, which has been defended as necessary for crime prevention and detection, wouldallow public authorities to access the identity of communication participants, their location, andthe duration of contact, among other information. Accessing the content of communicationswould still require a warrant. In December, Parliament’s Joint Committee on theCommunications Data Bill released a report that was critical of the draft, deeming it toosweeping and calling for consultations before redrafting. The prime minister announced at year’send that the bill would be rewritten.On rare occasions, the courts impose so-called superinjunctions, which forbid the mediafrom reporting certain information and even from reporting on the existence of the injunctionitself. The media have criticized the increasing use of these “gag orders,” claiming that theyallow the rich and powerful to be legally exempt from journalistic investigation. However, suchmechanisms have been undermined by the ease of spreading information via the internet andsocial media. In a recent superinjunction revelation, a Channel Islands businessman claimed thathe was gagged by the former wife of an unnamed Asian head of state in 2009. The businessman,Mark Burby, stated in a submission to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions,395