This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/world/europe/legal-battles-loom-over-british-press-curbs.html
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Legal Battles Open Over British Press Curbs | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| LONDON — In a protracted battle over press regulation, British newspaper and magazine publishers went to court on Wednesday to challenge politicians’ plans for new curbs as prosecutors in a separate high-profile trial were scheduled to lay out an array of charges against former top editors. | |
| The legal wrestling came hours before an advisory panel of senior politicians, known as the Privy Council, was to seek the formal assent of Queen Elizabeth II to an instrument known as a royal charter governing future press regulations. | The legal wrestling came hours before an advisory panel of senior politicians, known as the Privy Council, was to seek the formal assent of Queen Elizabeth II to an instrument known as a royal charter governing future press regulations. |
| In the complex arguments that have arisen since a judicial inquiry into the behavior of the rambunctious press ended almost one year ago with a call for tighter rules, both the press and a cross-party alliance of politicians have formulated conflicting proposals for new rules governed by royal charter. Newspapers are also planning to set up a separate regulator of their own. | In the complex arguments that have arisen since a judicial inquiry into the behavior of the rambunctious press ended almost one year ago with a call for tighter rules, both the press and a cross-party alliance of politicians have formulated conflicting proposals for new rules governed by royal charter. Newspapers are also planning to set up a separate regulator of their own. |
| In court on Wednesday, lawyers acting for publishers argued that politicians did not give adequate consideration to their proposals, and were expected to seek permission from senior judges to mount a formal legal challenge against the politicians’ charter. Richard Gordon, a lawyer acting for the press, said the charter proposed by publishers “has simply not been considered fairly”. | |
| “We would add to that it has not been considered rationally and we would add to that it has not been considered lawfully,” he said. But lawyers for the government say the publishers should be denied a chance to challenge the politicians’ charter since there has been no unfairness or abuse of power, the Press Association news agency reported. | |
| The main difference between the two proposals lies in provisions for future modification of the rules, which the politicians want to be the prerogative of Parliament. | The main difference between the two proposals lies in provisions for future modification of the rules, which the politicians want to be the prerogative of Parliament. |
| “The politicians claim the charter will protect the press, though the ineluctable fact is Parliament could change it for the worst at any time in the future,” the conservative Daily Mail tabloid said in an editorial. “Journalists would live in constant knowledge that if they angered M. P. s – by exposing another expenses scandal, for example – politicians who already scorn the media could take revenge by making the charter even more draconian.” | “The politicians claim the charter will protect the press, though the ineluctable fact is Parliament could change it for the worst at any time in the future,” the conservative Daily Mail tabloid said in an editorial. “Journalists would live in constant knowledge that if they angered M. P. s – by exposing another expenses scandal, for example – politicians who already scorn the media could take revenge by making the charter even more draconian.” |
| But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the politicians’ charter “will protect press freedom while offering real redress when mistakes are made.” | But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the politicians’ charter “will protect press freedom while offering real redress when mistakes are made.” |
| Royal charters are constitutional instruments used to incorporate bodies that, by their definition, “work in the public interest,” such as the BBC. Newspapers would not be obliged to sign the charter, but would have incentives to do so, including better protection from libel damages. | Royal charters are constitutional instruments used to incorporate bodies that, by their definition, “work in the public interest,” such as the BBC. Newspapers would not be obliged to sign the charter, but would have incentives to do so, including better protection from libel damages. |
| The push for new regulation came in the 2,000-page report of the Leveson inquiry into the telephone-hacking scandal that centered largely on parts of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. | The push for new regulation came in the 2,000-page report of the Leveson inquiry into the telephone-hacking scandal that centered largely on parts of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. |
| Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson — former editors of the now-defunct Sunday tabloid The News of the World, which Mr. Murdoch closed as the scandal mushroomed in July 2011 — went on trial with other defendants on Monday charged with several offenses related to the scandal, all of which they deny. | Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson — former editors of the now-defunct Sunday tabloid The News of the World, which Mr. Murdoch closed as the scandal mushroomed in July 2011 — went on trial with other defendants on Monday charged with several offenses related to the scandal, all of which they deny. |
| The prosecution planned to open its case against them later on Wednesday, British news reports said. | The prosecution planned to open its case against them later on Wednesday, British news reports said. |