Leveson's remit was clear, but in one sense narrow. It was to inquire into the the "culture, practices and ethics of the press" – it made no reference to the internet. Various witnesses argued that was something of a mistake, saying that they believed there was a real risk that Leveson would recommend a greater regulatory burden to be placed on the British press, and so creating greater opportunities for unregulated websites to take advantage.
The inquiry did not chose to examine the realities of online publishing, although Leveson scored one notable success when Paul Staines, the publisher of the Guido Fawksite, decided that he would not defy the judge and took down an early draft of Alastair Campbell's witness statement as ordered – even though Staines's site is based offshore and he could have tried to claim he was outside the inquiry's jurisdiction.
The, result, though is that many questions could remain unanswered. Should news and gossip websites be regulated along the lines of whatever emerges for the press? What about high-profile tweeters with thousands of followers – individuals whose remarks are more widely read than some online news? What about English language news providers from abroad, operating under the constitutions and conventions of their own countries? Once Leveson's report is digested, a fresh debate will begin about how far regulation is practical in the internet age. But don't expect there to be much appetite for a second inquiry.
The one that david camron wanted but didnt take notice of
No comments:
Post a Comment