The Leveson Inquiry

This is the official site of the Leveson Inquiry. It aims to provide the latest information on the Inquiry, including details of hearings and evidence, to the public and interested parties.

Background

The Prime Minister announced a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal, on 13 July 2011. Lord Justice Leveson was appointed as Chairman of the Inquiry.
Part 1 of the Inquiry examined the culture, practices and ethics of the press and, in particular, the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians. Lord Justice Leveson was assisted by a panel of six independent assessors with expertise in the key issues that were considered.
Lord Justice Leveson opened the hearings on 14 November 2011, saying: “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”  A wide range of witnesses, including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, police officers and politicians of all parties, all gave evidence to the Inquiry under oath and in public.
Lord Justice Leveson published his Report on Part 1 of the Inquiry on 29 November 2012.
Part 2 of the Inquiry cannot commence until the current police investigations and any subsequent criminal proceedings have been completed.

Censorship

•      CENSORSHIP: the suppression, alteration or deletion of material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive.

•      DEFAMATION: anything that damages a person’s reputation in the eyes of society.

•      LIBEL: publishing a false statement that damages a person’s reputation (written defamation)

•      SLANDER: making a false verbal statement that damages a person’s reputation (verbal defamation)

GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP: (formal) Used by Governments to withhold information from citizens. Often used during wartime to protect soldiers/public.

•      Used by the Department for Information during WW2. At one point the British Government considered taking over the BBC directly to control output

•     
Do you think Government’s should be requesting to have information removed or allow the internet to have complete freedom of speech?
I think they should be allowed to request for information to be removed because certain issues may disregard people’s human rights. Informal censorship is used, operating through independent regulatory bodies such as the PCC (Press Complaints Commission), Ofcom (Office of Communications) and the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification).

Do you think there should be informal censorship of TV? Should there be certain things that should/should not be said at certain times of the day?

•      I think that they should stick to how the current censorship works because if there was no censorship then at certain hours of the day, children may watch inappropriate things which can lead to negative values of life.

AUTHORITARIAN CENSORSHIP: positions of power are used to limit access to information. Media owners and editors can exercise this type of censorship.

•      SELF CENSORSHIP: individuals decide for they the information they will receive e.g. you turn the telly over because you don’t want to watch something you find offensive.

•     
Arguments for:

1.  To protect the security of the state

2.  To prevent children from being exposed to violence

3.  To protect people from being corrupted by overt sexuality

4.  To protect individual privacy

•     
Arguments against:

1.  People need accurate information in order to make choices

2.  Freedom of speech is a fundamental right

3.  It has not been proved that media material may corrupt or deprave

4.  Access to the internet has made censorship ineffective

WHAT PROBLEMS CAN YOU THINK OF WHEN IT COMES TO BLOGGING? DISCUSS!

Blogging allows freedom of speech on the internet however; this can criticise or target certain groups in society regarding social issues such as bullying and racism. Therefore there should be a limitation on blogging so that there is no risk of offence on the public audience.

My Political Compass