Media Defence

Last updated
Media Defence
Established2008  OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg (16 years ago)
Types non-governmental organization   OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg
Headquarters London   OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg
CountryUnited Kingdom  OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg

Media Defence (or Media Legal Defence Initiative) is a non-governmental organization established in 2008 to provide legal assistance to journalists, citizen journalists and independent media institutions. It also supports training in media law and promotes the exchange of information, litigation tools and strategies for lawyers working on media freedom cases. It is based in London, England and has a global network of media lawyers and media freedom activists with whom it works on cases and projects.

Contents

History

The Media Defence was established as a not-for-profit company in June 2008 and registered as an independent charitable organization in 2009. It originated after the criminal defamation trial in 2004 of Indonesian newspaperman Bambang Harymurti, editor of Tempo magazine (Indonesia). The group that assisted the defense of Harymurti saw the need for an independent non-governmental organization that could provide legal support to journalists and media outlets worldwide to defend their legal rights. Media Defence also works to improve the capacity of lawyers in Southeast Asia and elsewhere to defend media freedom of expression.

Since its foundation, Media Defence has provided assistance through grants for legal fees, supporting nongovernmental organizations that provide legal services to the media. Grants have also been awarded to enable the training and networking of media lawyers in Thailand, Malaysia, [1] Singapore, Indonesia, Cambodia, and the Philippines.

Gugulethu Moyo was the executive director of Media Defence from June 2009 until July 2011, [2] while Peter Noorlander became the Chief Executive between April 2011 and April 2016. Lucy Freeman succeeded him as Chief Executive from 2016 to 2021. Currently, Alinda Vermeer is the organization's substantive CEO, who joined in 2014. [3]

Notable cases supported

Media Defence has supported the legal defence of numerous journalists, citizen journalists and independent media organisations, including:

Media Defence has been invited to intervene as amicus curiae in the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Von Hannover v. Germany (2) (application no. 40660/08), adjudicated in February, 2012, on the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, MGN Trinity Mirror v. UK, in which it argued that the high cost of defending libel cases violates the right to freedom of expression, [5] [6] and Pauliukas v. Lithuania [7] in 2009. The European Court issued a strong ruling agreeing with Media Defence's submissions in the MGN case. Along with others, Media Defence also intervened in Max Mosley's application to the European Court of Human Rights, [8] as to whether there should be advance notice given to targets in privacy cases, and Sanoma v Netherlands a case addressing the protection of journalistic sources. In both cases, its arguments were accepted by the Court. It has interventions pending in a case challenging so-called "false news" laws, prohibiting the publication of anything the authorities deem to be incorrect; and in a case concerning the abuse of criminal libel laws.

Media Defence has also been at the forefront of a campaign at the Council of Europe to address the impact that counter-terrorism laws are having on media freedom. [9] The council's campaign has resulted in a pledge by States to review these laws. [10]

With the IBA and others, Media Defence also supports the development of the media lawyers network in Southeast Asia. [11]

Organization and funding

Media Defence is registered as a charity organization in the United Kingdom. [12]

Awards

In March 2015, Media Defence was awarded Columbia University's inaugural Global Freedom of Expression Prize. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris[1997] EWHC 366 (QB), known as "the McLibel case", was an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris over a factsheet critical of the company. Each of two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.

Source protection, sometimes also referred to as source confidentiality or in the U.S. as the reporter's privilege, is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. It prohibits authorities, including the courts, from compelling a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists.

Sir David Eady is a retired High Court judge in England and Wales. As a judge, he is known for having presided over many high-profile libel and privacy cases.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights is an organisation founded to protect and promote human rights in Croatia. It was founded on 31 March 1993, initially as a branch of the International Helsinki Federation and latterly as a member organisation of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. Since 14 April 2003, the organization has functioned as a local NGO under Croatian law and is supported by independent academics, journalists and professionals dedicated to protecting and promoting human rights in the country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech by country</span>

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

<i>Grant v Torstar Corp</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Grant v Torstar Corp, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640, 2009 SCC 61, is a 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision on the defences to the tort of defamation. The Supreme Court ruled that the law of defamation should give way to the rights of a party to speak on matters of public interest, provided the party exercises a certain level of responsibility in verifying the potentially defamatory facts. This decision recognizes a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

<i>Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd</i> UK ruling on defamation cases

Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 is a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that governs the use of injunctions against publication in alleged defamation cases. Greene, a businesswoman, sought an injunction against Associated Newspapers Ltd to prevent them publishing alleged links with Peter Foster; while they claimed to have emails showing links, she asserted that they were false. The test at the time for a preliminary injunction in defamation cases was Bonnard v Perryman, where it was established that the applicant has to show "a real prospect of success" at trial. The Human Rights Act 1998 established that judges should consider whether applicants are "more likely than not" to succeed at trial, a test applied to confidentiality cases in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd. Greene claimed that the Cream test should be applied rather than the Bonnard test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Stephens (solicitor)</span> English solicitor

Mark Howard Stephens is an English solicitor specializing in media law, intellectual property rights, freedom of speech and human rights. He is known for representing James Hewitt when allegations of his affair with Diana, Princess of Wales first emerged. In 2010, he represented Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, defending him against an extradition request to Sweden based on suspicion of numerous sexual offences. He also founded the law firm Howard Kennedy LLP, which has represented several high-profile clients in media and entertainment law cases.

Sir Michael George Tugendhat, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat, and referred to as Tugendhat J in legal writing, is a retired High Court judge in England and Wales. He was the High Court's senior media judge, taking over that role from Mr Justice Eady on 1 October 2010.

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech. The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable. It expanded that principle from its landmark defamation holding in New York Times v. Sullivan.

British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v Singh was an influential libel action in England and Wales, widely credited as a catalytic event in the libel reform campaign which saw all parties at the 2010 general election making manifesto commitments to libel reform, and passage of the Defamation Act 2013 by the British Parliament in April 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom</span>

The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom is an internet law bill filed in the Congress of the Philippines. The bill contains provisions promoting civil and political rights and Constitutional guarantees for Philippine internet users, such as freedom of expression, as well as provisions on information and communications technology (ICT) policy, ICT4D, internet governance, e-governance, cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, cyberterrorism, and cybercrime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Khadija Ismayilova</span> Azerbaijani investigative journalist and radio host

Khadija Rovshan qizi Ismayilova, also Ismailova, is an Azerbaijani investigative journalist and radio host who is currently working for the Azerbaijani service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, until recently as the host of the daily debate show İşdən Sonra. She is a member of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

Most Azerbaijanis receive their information from mainstream television, which is unswervingly pro-government and under strict government control. According to a 2012 report of the NGO "Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety (IRFS)" Azerbaijani citizens are unable to access objective and reliable news on human rights issues relevant to Azerbaijan and the population is under-informed about matters of public interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Glasser</span> American journalist

Charles J. Glasser Jr. is an American attorney, writer, educator and journalist.

References

  1. "Report on the Media Defense Lawyers Training - The Malaysian Bar". www.malaysianbar.org.my. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  2. "MLDI - a short history | Media Legal Defence Initiative". archive.is. 2013-06-24. Archived from the original on 2013-06-24. Retrieved 2021-01-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  3. "Media Defence Announces Alinda Vermeer as New Chief Executive Officer". Media Defence. Retrieved 2021-07-26.
  4. "Jailed Burkinabe journalist appeals to African Court". Committee to Protect Journalists. 2013-07-29. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  5. "CFA 'unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression' - Press Gazette". Archived from the original on 2011-06-16. Retrieved 2009-09-02. Press Gazette, CFA 'unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression'
  6. Text of the submission [ permanent dead link ]
  7. Text of the submission [ permanent dead link ]
  8. "Mosley case intervention on privacy laws to European Court of Human Rights'" - Finers Stephens Innocent [ permanent dead link ]
  9. "Open Society Program on Independent Journalism". www.opensocietyfoundations.org. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  10. the Guardian, Freedom of expression must be protected, says Council of Europe
  11. "S e Asia Media Lawyers - Pro Bono Net". Archived from the original on 2009-09-03. Retrieved 2009-09-02.
  12. "Our Organisation". Media Defence. Retrieved 2020-12-15.
  13. "University Awards First-Ever Global Freedom of Expression Prizes | Columbia News". Archived from the original on 2015-05-10. Retrieved 2015-05-22.