This paper explores Lord Justice Leveson’s treatment of press freedom in his report on the culture and ethics of the press. It is less concerned with the particular conception that Leveson employs to justify his recommendations, more with the impression created that this conception is imperative and should be adopted by the prospective regulator. By exploring the case law and academic commentary, it will be argued that since Leveson’s model of press freedom is neither philosophically mandatory nor democratically mandated, his approach is unappealing. It will be argued that Leveson’s model of press freedom is a prospectively poor measure by which to judge future regulatory performance and should not be adopted by regulators when determining ...
The Press Regulation Panel has this week recognised Impress as a post-Leveson Inquiry ...
A government consultation on press regulation which asked for views on whether to commence Section 4...
A government consultation on press regulation which asked for views on whether to commence Section 4...
The paper assesses the impact of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations for press regulation on ordi...
Editorial comment by Julian Harris on the publication and reception of Lord Justice Leveson's four-v...
As Britain ponders recommendations from the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of...
This report is the first comparative study of international press councils designed to inform the Le...
The fourth and final policy brief from our series assessing the progress of the Leveson Inquiry and ...
In this policy brief, published in conjunction with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalis...
As a result of the phone-hacking scandal and evidence of other serious journalistic abuses by some n...
This report is the first comparative study of international press councils designed to inform the Le...
The purpose of this chapter is not to rehearse the arguments that have already been made about the s...
Julian Harris, Deputy General Editor, Amicus Curiae describes the proposals and the political differ...
This article reviews the history of press self-regulation in Britain, from the 1947 Ross Commission ...
LSE MPP announces its plan to monitor the first 48 hours of Leveson coverage in the UK press. Damion...
The Press Regulation Panel has this week recognised Impress as a post-Leveson Inquiry ...
A government consultation on press regulation which asked for views on whether to commence Section 4...
A government consultation on press regulation which asked for views on whether to commence Section 4...
The paper assesses the impact of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations for press regulation on ordi...
Editorial comment by Julian Harris on the publication and reception of Lord Justice Leveson's four-v...
As Britain ponders recommendations from the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of...
This report is the first comparative study of international press councils designed to inform the Le...
The fourth and final policy brief from our series assessing the progress of the Leveson Inquiry and ...
In this policy brief, published in conjunction with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalis...
As a result of the phone-hacking scandal and evidence of other serious journalistic abuses by some n...
This report is the first comparative study of international press councils designed to inform the Le...
The purpose of this chapter is not to rehearse the arguments that have already been made about the s...
Julian Harris, Deputy General Editor, Amicus Curiae describes the proposals and the political differ...
This article reviews the history of press self-regulation in Britain, from the 1947 Ross Commission ...
LSE MPP announces its plan to monitor the first 48 hours of Leveson coverage in the UK press. Damion...
The Press Regulation Panel has this week recognised Impress as a post-Leveson Inquiry ...
A government consultation on press regulation which asked for views on whether to commence Section 4...
A government consultation on press regulation which asked for views on whether to commence Section 4...