Every month, in a relaxed location in central London the London Legal Salon will meet to discuss the big questions facing the law today. Attendance is always free. This blog will publish articles by attendees and the organisers to supplement the debates at our monthly meetings.







Every meeting will be introduced by a short talk from a lawyer or commentator in the area under examination. The discussion will then be opened to those attending to make contributions or ask questions. The meetings will last around ninety minutes and operate under Chatham House rules.







The discussions and the articles on this website will look to scrutinise the black letter of the law and its implications in the Courts and wider society. They will also look to situate the law in its historical and political context. We hope that by developing an understanding of where the law has come from, and why the law has taken the form it has today, we may begin to form an idea of where we want it to go.







Wednesday, 7 September 2011

Further reading for Monday the 12th of September 2011 launch debate

Please find below some further reading for Monday’s launch debate. Some key questions to consider are:

1. What will the Leveson inquiry achieve and is it the appropriate forum for debate on media ethics and regulation?

2. Is greater regulation in favour of media plurality in the public interest?

3. What does the scandal say about society’s attitude towards invasions of privacy? Do we think of such invasions differently when they are undertaken by the media than when they are undertaken by the state? If so, why?

4. How should journalists balance their role as guardians of the public interest with the maintenance of the rule of law? Should either take precedence?

The Screws No More: How dumb does that privacy debate look now?
By Alex Novarese in Legal Week
‘Lawyers should feel emboldened to make a more robust case for more effective media laws’.
http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2086853/screws-dumb-privacy-debate-look

Phone Hacking: More regulation is not the answer
By Barry Turner for Meeja Law
‘(The response to the phone hacking scandal) is typically British: the rules have been broken so let’s have more rules’.
http://meejalaw.com/2011/07/21/guest-post-by-barry-turner-phone-hacking-more-regulation-is-not-the-answer/

The Leveson Inquiry: Should we care?
By Des Freedman for the New Left Project
‘Inquiries are a useful way of taking some of the heat out of situations that attract great public interest and, by extending debate until it has effectively disappeared from everyday conversation, diminishing the possibilities for change’.
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_leveson_inquiry_should_we_care

Monitoring the popular press: An historical perspective
By Adrian Bingham for History and Policy
The experience of the past century suggests that the press is unlikely to engage in a searching self-examination without some external prompting.
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-27.html

Why I broke the law
By Tessa Mayes for Spiked Online
Any journalist worthy of the name should have the courage of their convictions to pursue a story that is worth uncovering. If they can stand by the story, and they believe the risk of imprisonment and fines are worth it, journalists should go for it
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?%2Fsite%2Farticle%2F7148%2F

The London School of Economics Media Plurality dossier
Numerous authors
A useful set of materials relating to litigation surrounding the purchase of by BSkyB of 17.9% of shares in ITV and the media plurality provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2011/01/12/media-plurality-dossier-the-case-of-newscorps-bid-for-bskyb/

We look forward to meeting you on Monday.

The London Legal Salon
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)