1. PiranSmith(s1203***)
In what ways is freedom of expression in the UK excessively curtailed by current broadcast law?
Thisessaywill discusswhetherfreedomof expression,asdefinedbythe HumanRightsActof 1998,
isexcessively curtailedbycurrent UK broadcastlaw.It will lookatdefamation, contemptof court
and injunction lawsinparticular, analysingwhatprecautionsbroadcastersandjournalistshave to
take when publishingstoriesaboutindividualsandorganisations.
In 1998 the Human RightsAct waspassedbythe UnitedKingdomgovernment.Thismeantall courts
inthe UK became legallyobligedtotake intoaccountthe EuropeanCourtof HumanRightsrulings.
Freedomof expressionisaddressedinarticle 10of the act and is dividedintotwosections. Section
one states that ‘Everyone has the rightto freedomof expression,withoutinterference frompublic
authorities’(DepartmentforConstitutionalAffairs,2006). The secondhalf of the article statesthe
‘Responsibilitiesthatcome withthe rightto freedomof expression.’Itmentions the ‘freedomto
express maybe subjecttoformalities,conditions,restrictionsorpenaltiesthatare prescribedbylaw
that are necessaryinademocraticsociety.’(DepartmentforConstitutionalAffairs,2006)
It isimportantto note that ‘broadcastlaw’ isa null term.There are no UK lawsthat specificallyapply
to broadcastersandnot othercitizens. “Everyone inthe publishingindustryhasthe same rightsand
obligationsasothercitizens.All are subjecttothe same laws.Butthe distinctive nature of mediaand
journalisticworkcontactwithspecificareasof the law everyday”(Dwyer,p59,2012).
One way freedomof expressioniscurtailedinthe UK isthroughlibel laws. Inademocraticsociety,
these lawscanhave positive andnegative effectsonwhatispublishedtothe general public.Before
goingintomore detail,itisimportantto understand defamationandwhenadefamatorystatement
becomeslibellous. Defamationis a“Publicstatementwhichcandamage the reputationof another
individualorparty”(Merrill,2014). Whenthe defamatory statementisputintoa permanent
recordedformand publishedtoa thirdparty,thenit becomeslibellous.
The purpose of libel lawsistoprotectindividualsfromunjustifiedattacksontheirreputation.In
theorythe lawsshouldn’tpreventastorybeingpublishedif whatisbeingsaidistrue.There are a set
of defences respondentscanuse tojustifytheirstory if theyneedtoexplainthemselvesincourt.
These defencesare
- Justification(ortruth)
- Fair commentona matter of publicinterest
- Privilege(absolute andqualified)
- Innocentdissemination

2. PiranSmith(s1203***)
In what ways is freedom of expression in the UK excessively curtailed by current broadcast law?
- Offerof amends;and
- Consenttopublication(Carey,53,2007)
Howeverlibelcasesdofavourthe party thatissuesa writ.“Once a claimantshowsthat the
statementisdefamatoryitispresumed,atthatpoint,thatthe statementisnottrue” (Carey,p54),
the issue isevenif the storyistrue,if itis notprovable ina court of law,thena defendantwill lose
the case and be subjecttolegal action. “…the respondent(newspaper,etc) oftendecidesnotto
fightthe case,and make an apologyand/orpayan out-of-courtsettlement…because libeltrialshave
uncertainoutcomes(juries) andevenif the journalistissure of his/herreport,itmightnotbe
provable”(Merrill,2014)
In the case of ChristopherJefferies,the tabloidpresslaunchedacharacterassassinationof him
followinghisarrestinconnectionto the murderof JoannaYeates.Libel lawsallowed Jefferiesto
mountlegal actionagainstthe papersthat publishedfalse allegationsabouthim. Intotal eight
paperspaidout compensationtoJeffriesandissuedapologies (telegraph.co.uk,2011).
Thisis an example of apositive use of libel law inregardstofreedomof expression. Itwasimportant
freedomof expressionwasrestrictedbythe tabloidsbecausewhattheyhadsaidwasnot true.They
abusedthe responsibilitiesthatcome withthe freedomtoexpressbynotfollowingthe lawsthatare
necessary ina democraticsociety.
Whendiscussingdefamation,libellousstatementsandthe restrictiononfreedomof expression, the
keypointto focuson iswhetherthe lawsfindabalance betweenthe freedomtoexpressanopinion
and the rightto a protectedreputation.“Inessence,defamationlaws…are concernedwith
balancinganindividual’srighttosafeguardtheirreputationwithageneral righttoexercise freedom
of communication”(RobertsonandNicol inDwyer,p50,2012)
So whatis the impactof libel lawonwhatcan be publishedandbroadcast? The impactismedia
publishers needtobe waryof libel law if theywanttoavoidpayingdamages.Theycannotgoahead
and justsay whattheywant,withoutthe riskof consequences.“Itisnotnecessarytohave a
lawyer’sknowledge…butmediapractitionersdoneedtorecognize riskywordsandphrases;know
whentoseeklegal advice inrelationtocontroversial content…andmake informedjudgements
aboutwhethertoproceedwitha publication”(Dwyer,59,2012)

3. PiranSmith(s1203***)
In what ways is freedom of expression in the UK excessively curtailed by current broadcast law?
Anotherwayfreedomof expressioniscurtailedinthe UKisthroughthe contemptof court laws.
“Contemptof court referstothe court’s abilitytopunishanypersonwhointerferes,inanyway,with
the properfunctioningof the courtsystem”(Carey,p173, 2007). To expandonthisdefinition,these
lawsare designedtopreventstoriesbeingpublishedthatcanaffectthe judicial process.
Journalistsandpublishersneed toanalyse theirwork tobe aware of whentheyare creating
substantial riskof seriousprejudice, andknow whatthe prosecution will lookforinacontemptcase.
“It will be necessaryforthe prosecutiontoprove firstthatthe riskto a fair trial issubstantial and,
secondly,thatthe effectof publicationwouldbe aserious impedimentorprejudice”(Carey, p175,
2007)
A goodexample of contemptof courtlawsbeing breachedcame in2008 whenITV Central rana
newsitemabouta trail that was aboutto start. Ina 23 secondregional newssegment, detailsof a
defendant’s previousconvictionformurder were mentioned.Thisbriefrelease of informationwas
deemedsignificantenoughtoaffectthe fairnessof the trail.
Firstlythe courtheldthe riskto the trail wassubstantial "The publicationinquestionwas aserious
and basicerror whichcreateda real riskthat the broadcast mightbe heardby membersof the jury
due to hearthe trial”(PA Meidapoint,2008).And secondlyitbelievedthe informationreleasedwas
seriousenoughtocause prejudice “…hispreviousconvictionshouldnotbe disclosed.The contempt
had resultedinthe disturbance of the court,delaysanddistresstothirdparties." (PA Mediapoint,
2008)
In all,ITV central had to paya £25,000 fine andofferedtoissue a“full andunreservedapologyatthe
earliestopportunity.”(PA Mediapoint,2008) Thisisan example of how restrictingfreedomof
expression isnecessaryforthe courts. These finesare designedtodiscourage mediaoutletsfrom
interferingwiththe judicialprocess.
Perhapsthe mostblatantexample of freedomof expressionbeingcurtailedbylaw comesinthe
formof injunctions. Injunctionsare gaggingordersdesignedtopreventthe pressfromreleasing
detailsinrelationtoanindividual’sprivate life oracourt case. Failure tocomplywithaninjunction
couldresultinthe publisherbeingpunishedforcontemptof court. “It iscommonfor judgestogrant
such injunctionsatatrail to preventanyrepetitivepublicationof the defamatorymaterial”(Carey,
p79-80, 2007)

4. PiranSmith(s1203***)
In what ways is freedom of expression in the UK excessively curtailed by current broadcast law?
It can be arguedthatinjunctionsare necessaryinthe legal process, “Theyare issuedearlyina
lawsuittomaintainthe statusquoby preventingadefendantfrombecominginsolventorto stopthe
defendantfromcontinuinghisorherallegedlyharmful actions.”(Cornell UniversityLaw School) But
a lot of speculationcomeswithinjunctionsandsome argue thattheyexcessivelyoppressfreedomof
expression.
One of the keyjustificationsof injunctionsistheyrelate to article eightof the HumanRights Act
(1998), butthere isno specificlawcoveringthe righttoprivacyinthe UK (Merrill,2014). Thisresults
injudgeshavingtoassesseachinjunctioncase broughttothemwithouta privacylaw to cite. Some
believethisisacause for concern because injunctionsare powerful toolsincurtailing freedomof
expressionandwithnospecificprivacy law;richandpowerful people canmanipulatethe rulesin
orderto preventthe pressreleasingdetailsaboutthem.
An example of asuperinjunctioncomingto the public’sattentioncame in2011 whenJohn
HemmingMP,namedRyan Giggsas the ‘Marriedfootballerallegedtohave hadan affairwitha
realityTV star’ duringa parliamentary debateonprivacylaws (BBC,2011). Hisparliamentary
privilegemeanthe couldspeak freelyonthe scandal withoutconsequence, thisallowedthe pressto
exercise the defence of absolute privilegewhen mentioningRyanGiggsinreports relatedtothe
scandal. “Statementsmade duringthe course of parliamentaryproceedingsaswell asthe
publicationof official reportsof those proceedingsare absolutelyprivileged”(Carey,60,2007)
Thiscase raiseda lotof issuesaboutthe powerof injunctions,if itwasn’tforHemmingnamingGiggs
inparliament;the presswouldnothave beenable topublish anystoryinrelationtoGiggsbecause
of the superinjunction.
In the case of celebritygossip,it isdebatable whetherornot these storiesare inthe publicinterest.
But there isa concern that withoutspecificprivacylaws,more importantstorieswhichinvolve
defamingan individual ororganisationwill be unable tocome tothe public’sattentionbecause of
injunctions. IanHislop,editorof satirical andcurrentaffairsmagazine PrivateEye, spoke outagainst
injunctions whenthe RyanGiggsstorywas beingdiscussedon the currentaffairsprogramme Have I
got NewsforYou. “…because they(the judges) inevitablybalance freedomof the individual privacy
againstthe press’sfreedomof expression,andobviouslyinthe case of a loadof slappersand
footballersit’sprettyarguable,butone daya propercase will come alongwhere we needtoknow

5. PiranSmith(s1203***)
In what ways is freedom of expression in the UK excessively curtailed by current broadcast law?
what’shappeningandwe won’tbe able tobecause of these stupidinjunctions”(Hislop,YouTube,
2011)
Withthe examplesof defamation, contemptof courtlaws and injunctions,it’spossibletosay
freedomof expressioninthe UKiscurtailed.Itcan be arguedthat these restrictionsare necessaryin
a democraticsociety.Theycanprotectindividualsfrommaliciousattacksfrom the pressthat are not
true.Theycan protect the judicial processfromprejudice andinterference.Butthere isalsoagreat
riskto the freedomof expression thatisnecessaryinademocraticsociety. Some libellousstories
expose wrongdoingtothe general publicandcanbringawarenesstoissues.
The word excessive isdefinedas “1) too muchor too great and2) more than whatisnormal or
necessary.”(Thompson,469,1995) Dependingwhichlaw isbeingreferredto,the extenttowhich
freedomof expressioniscurtailedvaries.Indefamationcases,the law favoursthe partyissuingthe
writ,the restrictioncanbe describedastoogreat,but withsufficientprovable evidence, itis
possible forthe storytobe broadcastor published. Withcontemptof courtthe restrictionisnottoo
great,it isnecessaryforthe courts to curtail freedomof expressioninordertocarry out fair trials.
An example of whereitcanbe arguedfreedomof expressionisexcessivelycurtailedisinrelationto
injunctions.Evenwithprovable evidence,the journalistsare discouragedfrompublishingthe story
for fearof beingvictimtolegal action.
Bibliography:
BBC. (2011). Ryan Giggs namedbyMP as injunctionfootballer.Available:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847. Last accessed19th December2014.
Bloy,Duncan(2007 ).Media Law . London:SAGE publications.65.
Carey,Peter(2007). MediaLaw. 4th ed.London:Sweet& Maxwell Limited. 53 54 60 79 80 173,
174.
Cornell UniversityLawSchool.(N/A).Injunction.Available:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction.Lastaccessed19thDecember2014.
DepartmentforConstitutional Affairs.(2006). A Guide tothe Human RightsAct 1998: ThirdEdition .
Available:https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/human-rights/act-studyguide.pdf.Lastaccessed
15th December2014.

6. PiranSmith(s1203***)
In what ways is freedom of expression in the UK excessively curtailed by current broadcast law?
Dwyer,Tim(2012). Legal & Ethical Issuesinthe Media. Hampshire : Palgrave Macmillan.50, 59.
Hislop,Ianin Louise BagshaweMPon superinjunctions(22Apr11) (2011) Have I Got NewsforYou
viaYouTube. Original airdate 22nd
April 2011, uploadedtoYouTube 23rd
April 2011, lastviews19th
December2014 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMAz85c3blc>
Merrill,Gary (2014, November11th
) MD6938 BroadcastLaw Week 7 Contemptof Courtand
Defamation [PowerPointslides] Presentedatthe Universityof Gloucestershire.
Merrill,Gary (2014, November11th
) MD6938 BroadcastLaw Week 11 Reporting restrictions and
privacy [PowerPointslides]Presentedatthe Universityof Gloucestershire.
PA Mediapoint.(2008).A £25,000 Contemptof CourtFine forITV Central .Available:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/41685.Last accessed16th December2014 .
Telegraph.co.uk.(2011).JoannaYeates'slandlordChrisJefferieswinslibelpayout.Available:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8670114/Joanna-Yeatess-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-wins-
libel-payout.html.Lastaccessed19thDecember2014.
Thompson,Della.(1995).The Dictionary. In: DellaThompsonThe Concise OxfordDictionary.9thed.
NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.469.