International Media Organisations Condemn Lords Anti-Press Clauses
Bodies representing international, European and UK media have united in their condemnation of the repressive House of Lords anti-press clauses in the Data Protection Bill which is currently being closely scrutinised by MPs.
Organisations including WAN-IFRA, the global trade body for newspaper publishers across the world; News Media Europe; the CPU Media Trust representing media in the Commonwealth; Press Association; Pact, representing independent filmmakers, and the News Media Association, have submitted written evidence to the Bill committee calling for the clauses to be overturned.
In his evidence, Press Association editor-in-chief Peter Clifton said all of the agency’s journalism services – in particular its court reporting – would be put at risk by the clauses.
Peter wrote: “The Bill’s costs sanctions clauses would even mean that a convicted criminal wishing to deter reporting of his case could launch the most hopeless of data protection claims against the Press Association safe in the knowledge that the court which struck out his claim would also be obliged to order us to pay his legal costs as well as our own.
“Multiply that threat to our court reporting to the rest of the Press Association’s work as one of the UK’s most respected and trusted news agencies. What other claims – and associated costs liabilities – could be directed at the work of all our 400 journalists and editorial staff, who each week produce 1,000,000 words, 2,000 images and 200 videos, encompassing everything from hard news to the latest entertainment exclusive?
“The Bill could create a proliferation of data protection claims against us which we would then be forced to fund, simply because we have chosen to be regulated and adhere to a tough regulatory regime over and above the law, but without joining a State-sponsored regulator. That threat applies not just to the Press Association, but to every other news agency, newspaper and magazine, local or national, UK or overseas, in print or online.
“We condemn these clauses. They would punish the Press Association for acting lawfully and for reasons of principle. They would impose sanctions upon the Press Association for the most scrupulous, lawful reporting in the public interest. They breach the European Convention on Human Rights, and will seriously chill freedom of expression.”
In a news release today, Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders and English PEN hit out at the clauses and urged the committee to drop them from the Bill.
Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship said: “The amendments proposed by the Lords reintroduce measures that the government has just said it plans to axe from legislation.”
Rebecca Vincent, UK bureau director for Reporters Without Borders, said: “We remain concerned about the prospect of this worrying cost-shifting provision under any guise. These measures threaten press freedom, and have no place in the Data Protection Bill.”
Antonia Byatt, director of English PEN said: “We must make certain that in ensuring we respect an individual’s right to privacy we do not trample all over our free expression rights.”
In a separate letter signed jointly by WAN-IFRA president Michael Golden, News Media Europe executive director Wout van Wijk, and CPU Media Trust founder trustee Ian Beales, international organisations warned the clauses would be a fillip to repressive regimes across the world.
“As international organisations dedicated to the promotion of freedom of expression, we are deeply alarmed by the anti-media changes to the UK’s Data Protection Bill. No other EU member state is implementing data protection legislation as a weapon against the press,” the organisations said.
“The Bill sets a dangerous precedent to governments everywhere, ripe for adaptation, just as European states legislate on their own new data protection regimes. Clauses added in the House of Lords would fatally undercut the protections for freedom of expression and freedom of information mandated by the GDPR itself and the European Charter for Human Rights. Their damaging impact on press freedom would extend far beyond UK magazines and newspapers.
“Merely for lawfully choosing not to join a UK state approved regulator, the Bill would require any title to fund those who wrongfully sue it. It means that a court that has just upheld the newspaper’s right to publish, is then required to order that title to pay all the legal costs of the action, including those of its wrongful accuser. This would apply to any news publisher, newspaper, magazine or online, international or UK, that could be sued before the courts of England and Wales.
“Robust independent journalism, scrutinising and holding power to account, would be put at severe financial risk. The Bill would chill investigation and publication, irrespective of the public interest and the public right to know. The UK’s ranking dropped to 40 out of 180 countries in the 2017 World Press Freedom Index and these clauses would tarnish its reputation yet further.
“We trust that the profound importance of press freedom will be recognised and that the Bill now before the House of Commons will be amended to excise these repressive clauses,” the letter added.
In its evidence Pact, the UK trade association representing and promoting the commercial interests of independent feature film, television, digital, children’s and animation media companies, said the costs shifting provisions were contrary to Article 10 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Such a system would mean that publishers would have to pay the costs of data protection litigation whatever the outcome. The economics of the industry at present (and the currently low value of most data protection claims) are such that it would be a brave publisher who defended a data protection claim all the way to trial. The potential for using litigation, or the threat of it, as a form of censorship is clear and examples of this are already emerging,” the body said.