Author Topic: FREEDOM OF SPEECH  (Read 7280 times)

Offline SSVOR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« on: August 22, 2010, 04:53:10 PM »
Privileges and procedures are looking to bring in under P100/2010 a media accreditation system. It's clear that this is designed to restrict access to and reporting on States proceedings including even public sittngs of committees and panels.

Anyone and everyone, irrespective of who, or what they support should be hugely concerned that for the first time in a Western democracy, there is an attempt at direct poltical control, through legislation, of access to and coverage of the political process.

Below are some thoughts on the issues and arguments:

The Media, Journalism and Journalists

To define “the Media” is relatively straightforward:       

a) a means of communication

b) a collective term for those involved in the
collection and dissemination of material via
a medium; often used to describe the
aggregated outlets specialising in news and
current affairs.

To that extent, the term “Media” is broad and embraces any and every person, group, or organisation involved, or engaged in the gathering, editing and dissemination of material considered to be of interest either to the public at large, or to an identifiable community, or group within society at large. The means of dissemination – radio, print, television, the internet etc – is largely immaterial.

It follows, therefore, that the lone blogger must be considered as much a part of “the Media” as the BBC News Division, the Times newspaper, or a Parish Newsletter.


The purpose of journalism is the gathering, editing and dissemination, or publication through a medium of news, information and opinion deemed to be of interest to the public.

There are, of course, many definitions of journalism, some much narrower than this, but, for our purposes and in view of the issues in hand, we shall assume acceptance of the above definition, or something very similar.

There are, of course, different forms of journalism and different types of journalist.  Each different medium demands a different style of journalism. Many journalists are specialists in some field, or other. However, the main point is that journalists produce and publish news, information and opinion for the consumption of others.

While their end products may differ wildly, essentially there is no difference between a journalist covering “hard” news stories for the BBC Ten o’ clock News, a journalist writing an article on crochet for “My Weekly,” a person writing about a local fete for a parish magazine, or an individual writing a personal blog on the internet.



On that basis, again, anyone who practices the gathering editing and dissemination, or publishing of news, information or opinion for public consumption must be considered a journalist and the fruits of their labours journalism.

Concerning the differences between the traditional, accepted, “accredited” media and others:



Journalists are professionals:

There has been a furious and bitter debate going on in the United States over a Senate bill which seeks to give “journalists” protection in Federal Courts when they decline to reveal their sources

However, that same bill seeks to define journalists solely as those employed to gather, edit and disseminate news and information by media organisations (the so-called “professional definition”)

Adoption of this Bill means that non-professional journalists – hobbyists, bloggers, activists etc. would not enjoy the protection it offers.

The “professional definition” is clearly too narrow. It is irrelevant whether or not a person is paid to write, or film, or broadcast material. The purpose of journalism does not include any mention that, in order to be classified as journalism, material must be gathered, edited and published by someone who is paid to do so and/or by a business specifically set up to do so.

Some are employed to practice journalism. Many others practice journalism without recompense, but for what they perceive to be the public good. The output of both groups must be considered as equally valid.




Journalists are trained


Training and professional qualifications cannot be considered a sine qua non when seeking to define a journalist.  Many people who contribute regularly to the established media are not “trained journalists.”

Normally, the specialist training undergone by journalists comprises schooling in the relevant craft-skills – writing-style(s), interviewing, audio and video production and editing etc. – coaching in the accepted conventions of orthodox journalism ( i.e. journalism as currently practised by “accredited” outlets such as newspapers and broadcast organisations); and components on governmental structure and the Law as it applies to journalism.

Having undertaken such training is, these days, a prerequisite for employment as a professional journalist by one of the established, or mainstream media outlets, but such training is not necessary for the practice of the main purpose of journalism: the gathering, editing and dissemination, or publication through a medium of news, information and opinion deemed to be of interest to the public.

Journalistic training ensures the employer that a candidate for employment has, at least, a grasp of the basic skills and a knowledge of the Law as it applies to, or affects journalism and journalists.

It could be said that journalistic training ensures that the good traditions of journalism are maintained, but, as someone once said: “Tradition is the worst business model in the world.”

It should be noted that – certainly in Great Britain - there is no specific law which defines journalism, or seeks to define the purposes and practices of journalism.

The laws which often apply to journalism are those designed to ensure the proper administration of justice (Contempt of Court, Rehabilitation of Offenders); to prevent a medium from inciting discrimination (The Race Relations Law; the Public Order Act.); and to protect sensitive data concerning individuals ( the Data Protection Law).

Everyone, trained, or untrained, professional, or amateur is subject to these laws. Therefore, training, professional status etc. cannot be considered a relevant factor.

If one breaks the law, one must answer for it, irrespective of whether one is a professional, trained journalist, or a hobbyist blogger.




Journalism is regulated:

Citizen Journalism has been criticised inasmuch as it is not subject to any form of regulation, save any internal controls and constraints imposed by the exponent himself, or herself.

The purpose of such regulatory bodies as the BBC Trust, Ofcom and the Press Complaints Commission is to monitor the self-regulation of the media which fall within their ambit, based upon an agreed and published Code of Conduct.


All are very similar.  They deal with such matters as:

1   Accuracy
2   Opportunity to reply
3   Privacy
4   Harassment
5   Intrusion into grief or shock
6   Children
7   Children in sex cases
8   Hospitals
9   Reporting of Crime
10   Clandestine devices and subterfuge
11   Victims of sexual assault
12   Discrimination
13   Financial journalism
14   Confidential sources
15   Witness payments in criminal trials
16   Payment to criminals
 

It must be stressed that none of the Codes of Practice currently in force in the traditional media is a legally-binding document.

They are, in effect, followed by agreement and consensus and although penalties for breaches of any of the Codes of Conduct can be severe, ranging from fines to even, the removal of a service (i.e. the loss of a licence to broadcast) none of the matters is criminal, nor do any of them come under what is commonly known as “the law of the land.”

Consider the question of “doorstepping” – i.e. approaching a person unannounced with a live microphone, or running video-camera and demanding a response from them. The Codes of Conduct specify that a journalist wishing to “doorstep” must obtain permission to do so at a very senior level, at the same time, fully justifying the need for the action.

This does not mean that the practice is illegal. It may be distasteful; it may give rise to a civil action for harassment; but neither is a reason for a legislature to involve itself.

While the UK government set up the BBC Trust and Ofcom to regulate their respective sectors of the media industry, as a rule, government does not involve itself directly in the regulation of any of the media within its jurisdiction.


It must be accepted that the internet - blogs, Facebook, Twitter etc - cannot be regulated in the same way in which the older, more traditional media can be regulated. This is simply because with radio, television and print, by and large, the medium, or delivery platform itself is not universally available and, therefore, those engaged are a comparatively small, easily and readily identifiable group, often with a hierarchical structure, which can be regulated.

The same is not true of the internet, which is worldwide, open and within which anonymity is easy.



Journalists are identifiable and don’t hide behind anonymity:

By and large this is true of the established, accepted media, but it is not a requirement and, certainly is not imposed by any law, or regulation.

That being said, there are many instances of unattributed journalism in mainstream, established journalism. One needs look no further than the Jersey Evening Post for at least two examples – “Helier Clement” and “Under the Clock.”

Since there is no law, or regulation which demands that a person practising journalism be identifiable, it must surely be up to the individual, or group to decide whether they wish to publish under their real names, or under a pseudonym.




Journalists do not publish libellous, or defamatory material:

Libel and defamation are civil, not criminal matters and should, therefore, not form part of the thinking of any legislative body seeking to define, or differentiate between different types of journalism.

The professional standing and level of journalistic training of an individual has no bearing on whether that person has, or has not committed a libel, or has defamed an individual, or body.

The only difference lies in the fact that, in the case of professional journalists, it is often their organisation against whom proceedings are instituted, rather than, or in addition to the individual.

Everyone who practices journalism is equally subject to actions for defamation, or libel, be they a multinational media corporation, or a single person, alone with his computer in his own home.

Within the established, “accredited” media, journalists have a responsibility to avoid committing libel, or defamation for a number of reasons:

1.   The applicable Code of Conduct demands “accuracy”. Libellous,
or defamatory statements are, by definition, untrue and,
therefore, are inaccurate.

2.   Actions for libel, or defamation are costly, especially if lost. Employed journalists have a responsibility not to cost their employers large amounts of money in settling law-suits.

3.   The publication of a libellous, or defamatory statement lowers the standing and credibility of both the outlet and the journalist.
 
However, the onus is solely upon the person who alleges defamation, or libel, to take such action as he, or she feels necessary to protect his, or her, good name.

This redress can take many forms: pointing out to the publication that it has made an error and receiving an apology and/or retraction; issuing and having published a statement of rebuttal; instituting legal proceedings.

All are, in effect, private, or civil matters, not criminal.

No legislature in the western world involves itself in purely civil proceedings of this nature.


Journalism is impartial:

This is the most commonly held myth about journalism.  It is immediately exploded when one considers the fact that most newspapers have a “colour.” – in the UK, usually, they either support the Conservative Party, or Labour. Consider, as just a single example, the relatively recent switch of support of the Murdoch press from Labour to Conservative.

Add in the fact that the majority of newspapers carry a large number of editorials and opinion-pieces and the concept of impartiality becomes, at best, cloudy.

Print journalism is rarely impartial and since Citizen Journalism is usually text, conveyed to a computer screen rather than a piece of paper, it must be accepted that, it too, can and will exhibit partiality and bias. In many instances, if the intent of the Citizen Journalist is to bring about political or social reform, bias is often a necessary part of their endeavours.

A blog is a personal thing, as is an editorial column, or opinion-piece. One may be provided by a single person on the internet, the other by an established newspaper with a massive circulation. Both are equally valid. To seek to limit one while allowing the other would be to introduce an unacceptable and unfair dual-standard.

No legislature in a Western democracy would, hopefully, dream of seeking to control “Letters to the Editor” by law. They are expressions of personal opinion and, as such, are a valid, but limited and usually partisan comment on the matter in hand. The same is true of contributors to broadcast interactive programming such as ‘phone-ins and of comments on blogs. It must be accepted that if one is free to pass personal comment in the letters-pages of a newspaper, or on the radio, one must be equally free to post comment on a website.

Similarly, there is any number of publications and websites which follow a particular agenda. Provided that they obey the Law and, if governed by such, adhere to their relevant Code of Conduct, they are allowed to function without interference. It is difficult to envisage why one particular group – Citizen Journalists, bloggers etc. - should be singled out for different treatment.

With regard to broadcast media - radio and television - there is a greater degree of impartiality than is usually found in print.

Impartiality is enshrined in the BBC Licence and Charter and is a cornerstone of the Ofcom Code of Conduct.

The internet allows many others to practice journalism who are not subject to such regulation and who, therefore, are not constrained by the need to achieve impartiality in coverage.


Proper journalism has an established standing:

Once upon a time, there were no newspapers. Radio broadcasting began in the 1920s. Television didn’t begin to achieve prominence before the 1950s. The internet, as a medium, is still developing and growing.

It can be argued strongly that Citizen Journalists, bloggers and the like are, in effect, the latest incarnation of a long-established tradition – pamphleteering.

In the late 17th and 18th centuries, pamphlets were a major means of informing the masses, but every pamphlet and pamphleteer had a personal, or political agenda.

Pamphleteering waned with the advent of mass-circulation newspapers; although it survived until fairly recently as a powerful political tool within jurisdictions which did not enjoy a free press, such as the late Communist Bloc countries.

There is little difference between the person who writes a, perhaps inflammatory, probably wholly partisan, entry on a website and the pamphleteers of old, save that the means of delivery these days is much more available, simple and immediate.

Every member of the States of Jersey has, himself, or herself, indulged in partisan pamphleteering, either handing out their election manifestos and leaflets to prospective voters, or pushing them through letter-boxes in their constituency.

Increasingly, candidates for election, are combining the traditional leaflets and pamphlets with websites which extol their own virtues as a prospective member of the States. They are, of course, not impartial and, in fact, are hugely partisan. Nor, in the main, are they written by professional, paid journalists; and their contents are not regulated except under the existing Law and the need, if the candidate so wishes, to avoid publishing libels and defamatory material.

However, within the definition of the term, such leaflets and websites are certainly a form of journalism.

In brief, it must be concluded that, in the practice and purpose of journalism, as accepted, there can be no valid, or legitimate differentiation between the established professional media such as the BBC, the J.E.P. and Channel TV etc. and the writings and postings of individuals, or groups on the internet.



So, is there any difference between the established media and Citizen Journalists, bloggers etc?

The chief difference between the established media and internet bloggers, Citizen Journalists, Activist Journalists etc. is simply one of public perception.

The fact that the established media are regulated; that they are well-established and of long-standing; that they do follow codes of conduct; that, with certain exceptions, they do seek to be impartial; that they do employ trained, professional journalists; and that they do have legal teams who actively seek to avoid libels and defamations means, simply, that readers, listeners, viewers and users feel that they can more readily trust and believe what they say.

The difference, therefore is quite simply credibility – and that, is a matter not for the States, or legislation, or regulation, but for each individual member of society.

In seeking to define “the Media,” or “journalists” and “journalism”, with a view to addressing the question of who should, or should not be allowed to attend / report on / film States’ business, such as the public meetings of Scrutiny Panels, the States are stepping into a veritable, albeit metaphorical, minefield.


The States is perfectly at liberty to formulate regulations, even legislation, to safeguard privacy and to ensure that its proceedings and business are conducted within the existing laws, but to seek to disbar a person, or persons from access to meetings and from, subsequently, recording those meetings for later public consumption on the grounds that they are not “journalists” can only be considered direct action designed to limit public access to States’ business and to curtail freedom of speech.

The fact that such people attend public meetings to gather information for later publication and public consumption means that they are, indeed, practising journalism and that, therefore, they are journalists.

To seek to disbar them on the grounds of professional status; a use of anonymity; lack of professional training; a lack of regulation; size of circulation, or user-numbers; the length for which their “publication” has been in existence; the fact that they follow a specific and, therefore, a partisan, or biased agenda; or because the States, or others, simply do not like what they say and how they say it would be to take a step unprecedented in western democracy and would, in simple terms, make the States of Jersey the only free, democratic jurisdiction to directly impose censorship and state control over a legitimate section of the ever-changing and developing media.

Offline tonytheprof

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
  • Gender: Male
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2010, 08:17:05 PM »
"Normally, the specialist training undergone by journalists comprises schooling in the relevant craft-skills – writing-style(s), interviewing, audio and video production and editing etc. – coaching in the accepted conventions of orthodox journalism ( i.e. journalism as currently practised by “accredited” outlets such as newspapers and broadcast organisations); and components on governmental structure and the Law as it applies to journalism."

"Having undertaken such training is, these days, a prerequisite for employment as a professional journalist by one of the established, or mainstream media outlets, but such training is not necessary for the practice of the main purpose of journalism: the gathering, editing and dissemination, or publication through a medium of news, information and opinion deemed to be of interest to the public. "

It may be these days, but back in the 1970s and 1980s, an ability to write and do so many words in a fairly neutral house style was pretty well the only qualification, certainly in the UK. I've friends who went in journalism with just a University degree, usually in History, Economics or English - media studies had yet to appear on the horizon.

If you want to see the limits to accreditation, look at the G20 summit  in Canada where a Guardian journalist was beaten up because he didn't have the right badge!

Offline tonytheprof

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
  • Gender: Male
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2010, 08:27:55 PM »
All the public side of the meetings is transcribed anyway and appears in Hansard or on Scrutiny websites - apart from names of people, who can be removed from Hansard (unlike the UK, Jersey decided on a more controlled and less open approach).

What the media scheme really wants is to restrict immediate access via filming to ensure that those people who get their news from visual clips have it restricted in the same kind of way as a UK lobby system. They may be concerned about what is done with the clips - selective editing, or putting a clip with a very biased commentary, for example, but the best way round this is to get anyone who wants to film to sign up to a code of practice. That might also include not taping politicians phone calls without telling them - Ben Shenton take note.

Incidentally, from my own and a friend's experience with the JEP in the 1980s, when a certain reporter who is still there now was reporting, the JEP will selectively edit what they print, and won't allow you to check the article before publication, even where there can be sensationalism or inaccuracy. The subjects were not political, but they were of social concern. My friend was cross that they'd effectively misreported what she wanted to say. I wouldn't allow any interview (it was about autism and vaccination) unless I could see it before publication, so they went elsewhere. Going by mispresentation of Terry le Sueur and Ian le Marquand, for example (both of whom have been given misleading reports and/or headlines), I don't think much of "mere accreditation".

ole razzy

  • Guest
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2010, 01:17:24 AM »
PPC as is currently constituted.


Chairman
Connétable Juliette Gallichan

Vice Chairman
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré

Members
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning
Deputy John Benjamin Fox
Deputy Judith Ann Martin
Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

My question is who is driving this from PPC. ILM? I can see a majority going with him on this but Higgins? I would have included Judy Martin but after the Labeygate email leak that ended up the farce blog I guess even she might be with ILM - if indeed it is him who's driving this.



Offline tonytheprof

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
  • Gender: Male
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2010, 01:34:12 AM »
Remember committee's don't usually show dissident votes - majority rules, and it is the collective decision which gets out - hence Montford Tadier's resignation in frustration. Personally I think that like some judicial reviews, dissent should be shown as well.

But if you look at what is now coming from PPC, it is clear that it is certainly mobilising against a wider democracy - a proposed £500 election deposit - Senators need nomination papers with 2 supporters from each Parish.

It's done to rule out "chancers", but it will certainly rule out a lot of other people as well.




Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1813
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2010, 03:21:03 AM »
What else do you expect from the establishment party, they have to try and keep out the people who would be in the States for the people. Cannot have that now can we must keep the power amongst the rich for the rich.

Offline tonytheprof

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
  • Gender: Male
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2010, 05:27:06 AM »
Despite all the farrago about "accredited" media, as anyone who has read British Journalism Review, for example, will know that it is a myth. Interested bloggers should subscribe, and they'd soon learn that. I cite one example, but the same facts about an absense of an agreed professional accreditation occurs in many articles.

Writing on the matter that journal, in 2009, Anthony Delanoe (former managing editor of the Daily Mirror) asked

In the confusion generated by demon bloggers and other problems of the age of
convergence, the shape is emerging of a question no one actually wants to ask and
certainly not to answer: might the time be nigh when professional journalists should be properly
professionalised and have their status established by an agreed credential?


The term "accredited" which we hear so much about is functioning rather like the King James Bible, popularly known as the "Authorised Version". As Bishop John Robinson pointed out, the rubric said that it was "appointed to be used in Churches" in England, and it was never stated once that it was "authorised" in any way. That seems to have been a popular misconception, and just like that, the term "accredited" suggests some kind of gold standard to which journalists must belong, like an agreed credential, but in fact, like the Emperor's New Clothes, this simply does not exist.

Obviously, one can suggest that by "accredited" is meant someone who writes or broadcasts for a media outlet such as radio, television, or a newspaper. But there is absolutely nothing to stop anyone starting their own newspaper, and if distributed as a free sheet (as with several papers in Jersey's history - I have fond memories of the Magnet Magazine), this would effectively make them a journalist in the eyes of the definition.

True, it could be argued that they would need to make money from that, but there are plenty of instances in the UK in the 1800s to 1900s where that is not the case. GK's Weekly was sold, and its contributors paid, but GK Chesterton earned his money elsewhere and subsidised the paper, also contributing free articles; yet no one would say that Chesterton had not been a journalist.

What is more, definitions carefully crafted to exclude minority viewpoints suggest a kind of special pleading, of deliberately being framed not really to designate who is a journalist or not, but rather the kind of person who is acceptable as a journalist. Given the tendency of the PPC to adopt a kind of self-serving pragmatism as a moral philosophy for doing politics, this would not surprise me in the least.

Webster has simply: journalist

a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

and for journalist

a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press

These are fairly wide definitions, and if PPC want to produce a more prescriptive definition, they should explain why they are taking liberties with the English language, and how that is justified in general rather than merely pragmatic terms.

Geoffrey Robinson QC said that journalism was "the right to free expression available to
every citizen", and added that "being available to all, cannot in principle be withdrawn
from a few by any system of licensing or professional registration". Evidently PPC know better.


« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 05:29:29 AM by tonytheprof »

ole razzy

  • Guest
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2010, 05:53:00 PM »
When I graduated the first time I struggled to work in my chosen field so I had to transfer my skills to another industry that could support my lavish lifestyle! Working in TV and Film production was fun, I learnt new skills and met lots of creative people but at no stage in my career did I have any formal training as a journalist, although on a technical level I learnt how to use a professional camera, editing and motion graphics software. I also got to travel a lot and form opinions about other cultures. During that time I never lost interest in my degree subject and went on to complete a masters a decade later. By good fortune, and whilst still working in TV production, I was offered the opportunity to work as a video journalist for the online version of an international newspaper which covered the art market - and having been a Fine Art graduate you might say this was my dream job. I still had no formal training as a journo but it didn't matter to my employers and it didn't stop me doing a good job.

My point is this. I was not (and am still not) a trained journalist as such. I had no NUJ membership or press card. But I was flown around the world to attend art fairs, exhibition openings, academic conferences and war zones (where artefacts where being looted).  I interviewed some of the world’s leading artists, collectors, museum directors and curators. That I was not 'accredited' did not matter in the slightest. My business card was all I needed. If you know your subject well, have some basic technical knowledge and most importantly an opinion which might be interest to others then you’re already doing the job and that’s none of the government’s damn business!

ole razzy

  • Guest
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2010, 08:27:56 PM »
I was looking for something else entirely on the States Assembley website when I found this;

WITHDRAWAL OF LODGED PROPOSITIONS
 
In accordance with Standing Order 34(1), the proposer of the following proposition lodged ‘au Greffe’ has informed the Greffier of the States that it is to be withdrawn –
 
Media Relations: Code of Conduct. P100/2010

Lodged: 15th July 2010.


Privileges and Procedures Committee.

So they bottled it! Thank heavans! We remain a democracy that values free speech. So long as your not a disenter that is!

Would like to hear what SSVOR has to say about this.
 
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 08:29:40 PM by ole razzy »

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2010, 08:57:20 PM »
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

ole razzy

  • Guest
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2010, 09:12:18 PM »
Thing is Dylan I'd bet my left testicle that if a tender was put out to provide live video streaming of States sittings, scrutiny meetings and other public interest gatherings like the hustings it would be awarded to CTV for their unstinting loyalty to the Council of Ministers.

Anyway its dead in the water. Rightly they've backed off and necks have been wound in. Maybe that nice man from China that was over recently insisted it was written into the reciprocal agreement! Snnnrrrkkk.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 09:16:18 PM by ole razzy »

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2010, 09:19:04 PM »
I thought you's already bet that one and lost?
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

ole razzy

  • Guest
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2010, 09:24:10 PM »
I didn't think that old film was still doing the rounds? Let us pray it's not found its way online! Larry Flint never was a good camerman anyway. Way too slow when pulling focus.

Offline SSVOR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2010, 06:55:31 PM »
Hi, Razzy,

Whatever the reason(s) for the withdrawal of P100/2010 it's to be sincerely welcomed.

To stray into the realms of conjecture, perhaps Juliette and her Committee realised the folly and utter "wrongness" of P100 and simply did the right thing; perhaps someone questioned the legality of legislation such as P100 under the HCHR and advised against it; perhaps, given the current and projected state of the island's finances etc it was considered of insufficient importance to occupy States' time with a debate when there are so many other pressing issues in need of address; perhaps, given the apparent resolution of response to Jersey's more controversial blogs to a few repetitive die-hards P100 was considered too much of a sledge-hammer for an increasingly diminishing walnut?

Who knows? Perhaps someone could ask Juliette, but the reason is academic - the fact is what matters; so let's put it down to a victory for common-sense.

Offline SSVOR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2010, 05:41:57 AM »
A little bird tells me that Privileges & Procedures' withdrawal of P100/2010 is only a temporary measure and that it will be re-lodged ater a few alterations designed to clarify "a couple of things" - chiefly what will be accepted as an "accredited" media organisation. This is, I undrstand, to forstall any argument that belonging to a blogging organisation counts as "accreditation."

So the craziness may well continue.