Adam Wagner responds to Leveson on regulating social media and blogs

Adam Wagner was asked here by Lord Leveson: "The Inquiry would also welcome your views on the extent to which the content of websites, and the manner in which you operate, can be regulated by a domestic system of regulation?" He responded here:

I do not think blogs can or should be regulated by a domestic system of regulation, for the following reasons: 

a. Practically unworkable: Practically it would be impossible to regulate all blogging. Hundreds of thousands of blogs are set up each day, let alone posts published, and the term is so elastic (see above) that the task would be simply too large and amorphous for any regulator to manage. Even if only popular blogs were targeted, say those over a certain number of hits, what is to stop an individual blogger simply setting up a new blog in order to avoid regulation? I expect that such a system would be simply unworkable. 

b. Current system works: The current system of criminal and civil law already provides a reasonable level of regulation. Bloggers - whether their websites are read by 1 or lm people - are subject to financial penalties for libel or quasi-criminal sanctions if they commit a contempt of court. See for example the case of Elizabeth Watson, referred to be below, who was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment (later suspended) for breaching a court order through information published on her personal website. That being said, I also note a 1 February 2012 report in The Independent that Mr Justice Peart has said in relation to an Irish case involving the www.rate-yoursolicitor.com website that "The civil remedies currently available have recently been demonstrated to be an inadequate means of prevention and redress". 

High Court Judge makes new Social Media Law (re: Breach of Court Injunctions)

Less than two weeks after the Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat delivered judgment on the McAlpine v Bercow Twitter libel affair (see here and here), the UK's top media and libel judge has made new law and sent out another clear message to social media users.

Namely: the internet may have made everyone a  publisher, however the internet did not made publishing responsibility free. Therefore, don't say anything on social media you wouldn't say on a print newspaper.

This time round the message from the legal mill is a little more social media-user friendly. OK, to understand things we need to go back to here on Defero Law. In that post entitled, "Is Social Media Uncontrollable?" I talked about two men who posted images of the two men who killed Jamie Bulger. This was in breach of a court order; therefore there was a legal effect to their actions (see Social Media and the Law: Know Where You Stand, my blog on the Huffington Post).

The two men were originally convicted and handed down prison terms. Now this has changed. See tweets bellow from Adam Wagner.

TWITTER, READ THIS JUDGMENT! 2 men who shared Jamie Bulger killer pics get 9 month sentences suspended for 15 months bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) June 4, 2013

… Court says in future serious social media injunction breaches, unlikely jail sentences will be suspended. TAKE NOTE bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) June 4, 2013

Full judgement available below in tweet from the Judicial Office:

High Court judgment in HM Attorney General v Harkins & Liddle (breach of Venables/Thompson injunction) now available bit.ly/13CrlZj
— Judicial Office (@JudiciaryUK) June 4, 2013

This is another important step on the road to hammering out the law that governs activity on the social web. Just this time the judge has made new law that makes it clear what will happen if you publish comments online that breach a court order. And as Adam Wagner rightly said: "TAKE NOTE!"

This post originally appeared on the Twitter for Lawyers blog here.