header-logo header-logo

20 February 2015 / Mark Lewis , Anna Brooks-Gallerani
Issue: 7641 / Categories: Features , Freedom of Information
printer mail-detail

Finely balanced

lewisbrooks

Mark Lewis & Anna Brooks-Gallerani discuss freedom of speech & the privacy of individuals

In two recent speeches, Lord Neuberger (the President of the Supreme Court) remarked that “astonishing developments in IT”—the speed of global communications and the ease with which words can be secretly recorded and doctored—may make it inevitable that the law on privacy and communications may have to be reconsidered.

With three billion internet users worldwide, Lord Neuberger noted that the internet presents both unprecedented opportunities for free speech but also unprecedented opportunities for encroachment on individuals’ Art 8 right to private and family life.

He queried whether anonymous speech on the internet is even capable of protection in the internet age. This view flowed from Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Limited [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB), [2009] All ER (D) 155 (Jun) which established that blogging could not be protected under UK privacy law because it is an essentially public rather than a private activity. Lord Neuberger noted that this decision could be applied in future judgments in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll