On 29 November 2012 the Part 1 of the Inquiry was published (since the current police investigations have not been completed yet, the Part 2 of the Inquiry cannot be initiated), where Lord Justice Leveson made some recommendations where he suggest that the newspapers should continue to be self-regulated and a new regulation body should replace PCC (Press Complaints Commission).This new body should be underpinned by legislation. PCC was being criticized for not being effective since it didn’t protect the public from abuse - like invasion of privacy, harassment, inaccuracy and unfairness, inadequate redress – that was reveal mainly during the phone hacking incident. It was also revealed that certain third parties were working on their behalf, giving them the opportunity to hack into the phones or emails of known people (such as victims of a crime, celebrities or politicians), intimidate or bribe public figures or sources, which might led to compromising or jeopardizing police investigations. Prime Minister David Cameron later showed his support for Leveson’s recommendation and welcomed many of his findings, but also showed serious “concerns and misgivings” on
Their role is to register care providers, monitor, inspect and rate healthcare services. The CQC has a role in publishing views of the major quality issues and performance ratings to enable consumers to choose care in health and social care. The Commission ensures the quality and safety of care in hospitals, dentists, ambulances etc. The CQC is sponsored by the Department of Health. Governance, Accountability and Staff The CQC board has 6 Commissioners and is governed through the Chair of the CQC, and is accountable to the Secretary of State for Health of the UK.
However, less protected speech still enjoys a level of protection under the First Amendment. In the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the standard for malice on how far the press is allowed to report on a public official before it is considered libel was established. Libel is written communication that is sometimes defamatory in nature and might cause harm to an individual. At times, written and printed information can be false and harmful to the reputation of a public official. In the Sullivan, case Justice Brennan wrote that the debate over public issues should be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Since the information printed by the New York Times was not accurate toward the public official, the Court understood that free speech should be given more latitude before it was considered libel.
The decency and morality includes the state can put restriction on forms of expression if they are considered to be indecent, immoral or obscene. The Supreme Court in India while deciding whether the novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover contained obscene material, upheld the Hicklin Test. The contempt of court concerned with the laws enacted by the legislature which restrict the exercise of one’s right of freedom of speech and expression if it interferes with due course of justice or lowers the authority or stature of justice or lowers the authority or stature of the court. Although criticism of the judicial system or judges is not restricted, it must not impair or hamper the administration of justice. Defamation is an intentional false statement either published or publicly
To a certain extent this is true, but regarding hate speech, it should have no constitutional protection, according to Charles Lawrence. Lawrence believes that “Face-to-face insults are not deserving of constitutional protection because they are immediately injurious like a slap to the face” (Burke, October 2,2015). Anyone from a minority group that has ever been a victim of hate speech will say that this is true. For example, a Middle Eastern man flying on an airplane is sitting down. Another women is about to sit down next to him, but refuses to do so.
Thus the reporters were considered to be authors in this judgment. Then came a milestone decision in the UK copyright history University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd; 1916 . In this case the court had to consider whether what could be included in the category of original work under the Copyright Act, 1911. The case dealt with examination papers which were written for the University of London back in 1915. Under the University of London's senate's decision all examination papers created by appointed examiners would belong to the University, aside from drawings, and the University reserved all rights to reproduce those exams without any extra compensation to the examiners who had written them.
at09:00 am, 11:00 am, 01:00pm, 04:00 pm, 07:00 pm, 01:00 am – which are immediately faxed to CM secretariat, home minister, CS, IGP, secretary of information commission Lahore and PROs to the concern ministers. • Press Information: Press laws deals correspondence with the supply of information about availability titles to Distract Magistrate. Functions and Responsibilities: • Regulations of press laws and initiation of action against violator’s scrutiny of Newspaper/magazines/periodicals (foreign/local) to identify objectionable and controversial matter. • Verification of titles of publications and supply information about availability of titles to District Magistrate. • Films and Publications: In DGPR the Films and Publication Section has been offered an important role since when it was established.
“The Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 is also closely related to the publishing world. The purpose of this act is to control all types of publications, whether printed in the country or imported from abroad”(UUM PRESS 2015). This PPPA was quite controversial and a debate to begin with because freedom of expression and freedom of speech was limited for the printing presses and newspaper company. Those sector was restricted from writing true stories and telling the truth to the public because they could not touch any matter regarding political stuff and manipulating news to the public. If the media sector and newspaper company did not follow those rules, the Home Affair Minister has the right to suspend the permit and refuse an application for a permit for newspaper and printing presses.
Likewise, the freedom of speech is subject to the rules of procedures of a House, such as use of unparliamentary language or unparliamentary conduct. The freedom of speech guaranteed under clause (1) is different from that which a citizen enjoys as a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a). The freedom of speech as a fundamental right does not protect an individual absolutely for what he says. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (2) of Article 19. The term ‘freedom of speech’ as used in this article means that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings, civil and criminal, in any court for the statements made in debates in the Parliament or any committee thereof.