Control Freaks Thwarted…High Court nixes claims that website owners can control who browses their websites by claiming copyright over the temporary files created when reading a web page

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk

The supreme court has thankfully ruled that opening newspaper articles in a browser via a website link is not somehow a breach of the newspaper’s copyright. The ruling comes after a three-year legal between the Newspaper Licensing Agency and a media monitoring company, Meltwater, which charges PR companies for alerts about their clients. After a dispute over fees that has already been through the high court and court of appeal, the supreme court was asked to look at the narrow question of whether the copyright of newspapers was infringed when a user browses content online. Five supreme court judges led by the president, Lord Neuberger, found against the NLA’s arguments that browsing would constitute a breach of copyright because the newspaper article would be temporarily stored in the users’ computer. The supreme court said it could not be a breach of copyright as it was a temporary page and the European Court of Justice had already ruled this would be an exception to copyright law, because it was a necessary part of the technical process supporting the internet experience. The supreme court said if it had found otherwise, it would have been: An unacceptable result, which would make infringers of many millions of ordinary users of the internet across the EU who use browsers and search engines for private as well as commercial purposes. But the supreme court has decided that the copyright issues surrounding web browsing are so important that it has referred the case it was examining to the European Court of Justice to ensure that the ruling applies uniformly across the EU. Jorn Lyssegen, chief executive of Meltwater, said he was Very pleased that the supreme court over-ruled the previous rulings by the court of appeals and the high court that the simple act of browsing the internet could be copyright infringement.

Banned and Proud…Boris Johnson set to be challenged in High Court over a ban on bus adverts proclaiming pride in being ex-gay

Read more Gay News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

7th March 2013. See article from telegraph.co.uk

London mayor Boris Johnson will this week face claims in the High Court that he failed to respect a Christian group’s right to free speech by banning their posters from the side of London buses. Johnson refused to run the advertisements which promoted the Core Issues Trust’s view that homosexuals can be reoriented through therapy and prayer. Johnson said the ads were offensive to gays, and said they could even spark retaliation against the wider Christian community. Johnson was acting in his mayoral role of being in charge of Transport for London, which is responsible for approving advertising on buses in the city. The posters said Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it! and was in response to a previous poster campaign by Stonewall, the gay rights group, which said: Some people are gay. Get over it! Mike Davidson, the head of the trust, and his supporters will go to the High Court to claim Johnson’s ban on their poster campaign should be reversed on the grounds that he unlawfully stifled free speech. A Transport for London spokesman said: The advertisement breached TfL’s advertising policy as in our view it contained a publicly controversial message and was likely to cause widespread offence to members of the public. Update: Judge backs ban on anti-gay advert but criticises acceptance of pro-gay advert 23rd March 2013. See article from christiantoday.com The High Court has ruled that Transport for London’s decision to refuse a Christian group’s bus advertisement was not unlawful. The advertisement had been booked by the Core Issues Trust, which works with people who have unwanted same-sex attractions. It was to run with the slogan: Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it! The advert was a response to one placed on buses by gay lobby group Stonewall reading, Some people are gay. Get over it! The Core Issues Trust advert was withdrawn in April last year following an intervention by London Mayor Boris Johnson, who is chairman of Transport for London. TfL justified the decision at the time on the basis that it was likely to cause widespread or serious offence to members of the public and that it included images or messages which relate to matters of public controversy and sensitivity . Mrs Justice Lang ruled that Johnson did not abuse his position by imposing the ban. However she said that the advert placed by Stonewall was highly offensive and that the TfL had fallen below the standards to be expected of a responsible public body .

Archive Censorship…Newspapers and Broadcasters speak out against court powers to ban website content that may be prejudicial to trials

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk

A coalition of national newspapers and broadcasters are to warn against possible changes to contempt laws that could see courts given new powers to order the removal of archive stories from their websites. A Law Commission consultation paper on reforming contempt of court legislation has raised fears in the media industry that the proposals could fundamentally alter criminal reporting in the digital age. The Media Lawyers Association (MLA), which represents newspapers and broadcasters, is expected to submit a response expressing concerns about a number of the proposals set out in the Law Commission’s consultation paper. Crown court judges could be given the power to order newspapers and broadcasters to temporarily remove potentially prejudicial material even if it was first published years ago, according to proposals put out for consultation by the Law Commission. Santha Rasaiah, a director at the Newspaper Society said: It would be unnecessary, disproportionate and onerous to introduce courts orders which would effectively require that the local media routinely identify and remove material from their archives. David Burgess, deputy general counsel for the Independent, i and London Evening Standard, said the emphasis should be on judicial directions to the jury not to research material outside court: The focus should not be on court orders controlling archives. When seeking to secure a fair trial, firm and clear judicial directions to the jury not to undertake independent internet searches is the sensible approach. Only in very unusual cases should such instructions be supported or supplemented by court orders. In addition, when asserting that an archive publication creates a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced the applicant should be forced to demonstrate why judicial directions to the jury would not be effective in each individual case.

PC Sheep at UK Court…Man shamefully jailed for 12 weeks for bad taste jokes

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  guardian.co.uk

A teenager who posted bad taste jokes about April Jones on his Facebook page has been jailed for 12 weeks. Matthew Woods made comments about April and Madeleine McCann. Woods was arrested for his own safety after about 50 people descended on his home. He pleaded guilty at Chorley magistrates court to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is ‘grossly offensive’. The chairman of the bench, Bill Hudson, said Woods’s comments were so abhorrent he deserved the longest sentence the court could hand down. Hudson added: The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive. The court was told Woods’s Facebook page was available to a large number of people but there’s no mention of how many people actually saw it. Martina Jay, persecuting, said: He saw a joke on Sickipedia [an online database devoted to sick jokes] and changed it slightly. Among Woods’s comments were: Who in their right mind would abduct a ginger kid? In another he said: I woke up this morning in the back of a transit van with two beautiful little girls, I found April in a hopeless place. He also wrote: Could have just started the greatest Facebook argument EVER. April fools, who wants Maddie? I love April Jones. Also posted were comments of a more sexually explicit nature. The CPS has confirmed that it reviewed the case and was content with the prosecution going ahead. Offsite Comment: No one should be put in prison for making a joke that other people don’t like. 9th October 2012. See  article from  blog.indexoncensorship.org by Padraig Reidy

Getting the General Picture…Examining the extent of Dangerous Pictures prosecutions in Scotland

Read more Extreme Pornography News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  caan.org.uk

The Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) have been researching the extent of Dangerous Picture prosecutions in Scotland. The Scottish variant of the law against extreme porn was enacted in March 2011 and the period under analysis in this report is August 2011 to August 2012. Via a Freedom of Information request found that 41 cases of Dangerous Pictures had been investigated. 27 cases are still in progress, and the outcome of the 14 case resolved so far is: 8 cases dropped 1 not convicted 5 convicted. It is not yet clear as to the pattern behind the prosecutions. South of the border, nearly all prosecutions are linked to investigations for other offences (most frequently linked to various forms of child abuse). Extreme porn prosecutions are then either used to top up the original charges or else used for vindictive prosecutions should the main charges fall through as in the notable case of Simon Walsh. …Read the full article

Trial Aborted…Public order charges against nasty abortion posters dismissed by judge

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  telegraph.co.uk

Two Christian pro-life campaigners are celebrating what say is a victory for free speech after being cleared of criminal charges for displaying a graphic banner outside an abortion clinic. A District Judge dismissed the case against Andrew Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane who were arrested after unfurling 7ft banners showing aborted foetuses outside the Wistons clinic in Brighton last year. They went on trial at Brighton magistrates’ court last week accused of breaching the Public Order Act by displaying images likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress . District Judge Nicholson ruled that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the trial. He will give his reasons today. Claims emerged during the trial that police had been actively fishing for complaints in an effort to get rid of the campaigners. Stephenson said: What the police have been doing in shutting us down has had a chilling effect on free speech. Hopefully, this will have a chilling effect on the police to hold back on the over-reaching application of the law.

Titanic Level of Easy Offence…Cruiser paid off after supposed offence from comedian’s Irish jokes

Read more International Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  marinelog.com

Cruise lines may have to start censoring on-board comedy routines. The Guardian reports that an Irish man who brought a civil claim against P&O owners Carnival in a UK court has won an out-of-court settlement John Wolfe a retired builder from Dublin, complained to P&O after he and his wife Joan sailed on a worldwide cruise on the Oriana five years ago when, he claimed, two comedians entertained passengers by telling a series of Irish jokes in their routines. The Guardian says he claimed that he found the jokes deeply offensive and left him feeling humiliated. After allegedly receiving reassurances that such jokes would be banned and they were given ฃ 1,000 of vouchers, the Wolfes were surprised and upset to hear similar jokes when they took another P&O cruise in 2008 to the Caribbean on board the Artemis,reports the Guardian. Wolfe brought a civil claim against Carnival Plc – the owners of P&O – under race relations legislation as well as the European Union’s race directive. The case was settled out of court, reportedly for a five-figure sum.

A Waste of Police Time…Man fined 220 quid for a trivial email insult to an MP

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  guardian.co.uk

A man who emailed a trivial insult to a Tory MP after the politician was headbutted by a rival at Westminster was fined ฃ 110 and ordered to pay ฃ 100 costs. He was also given a restraining order against contacting the MP directly or indirectly for 12 months. Nicholas Scales told MP Stuart Andrew to stop wasting police time and get your fucking job done , Leeds magistrates court heard. Scales said Eric Joyce, the Labour MP who attacked Andrew in the Strangers Bar at the House of Commons in February,probably knocked some sense into your small-minded Tory mind . The rant continued, saying if the MP had ever been out in Leeds or Bradford he would have known how to defend himself. Scales, who pleaded guilty to sending a malicious communication last month, will pay the fine and costs out of his benefits. Lin Burgess, chairman of the bench, told him: We note your previous good character, early guilty plea and co-operation with the police and have had the benefit of a lengthy pre-sentence report. We consider this a serious offence due to the content of the communication sent.

Vindictive Persecution…Prosecution of Simon Walsh has shown English law in the worst possible light

Read more Extreme Pornography News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  guardian.co.uk by Nick Cohen

The Crown Prosecution Service under the current director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, is earning a deservedly bad reputation for its vexatious litigation. Her Majesty’s chief inspector estimates that almost one in 10 of its prosecutions is baseless Thousands of people plead guilty, nevertheless, just to get the CPS off their backs. …Read the full article

Crown Persecution Service…Dangerous Pictures trials ends in victory for the defendant

Read more Extreme Pornography News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk

Barrister Simon Walsh and former Boris Johnson aide has been acquitted of possessing extreme pornography in a landmark case over the boundaries of what can be described asextreme . The jury was unanimous and took less than 90 minutes to clear Walsh after a week-long trial. The case is believed to be the first to address whether images of anal fisting, a sexual practice which is legal, and urethral sounding are extreme pornography, as defined under the disgraceful law, section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. After searching Walsh’s home and office computers, the investigators found nothing incriminating. All they could come up with six email attachment images, on a Hotmail server account he set up to receive and send sexual messages. Surely this lack of substantial evidence, coupled with the desperately thin set of email attachments must have sounded a few warning bells about persecution. Anyone owning a computer must know that there are bound to be a few undesirable images hanging round somewhere, especially in email folders. It must have gone through the minds of jurors that should the police ever take an interest in their computers, then this could easily happen to them or their families. Walsh was sacked from his position on the London Fire Authority on his arrest in April last year. He was a man of impeccable character who had made an outstanding contribution to society, the court heard, and had previously chaired the City of London Corporation police authority and licensing authority. Walsh faced five charges under the 2008 act, which stipulates images are extreme if they are grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and if they portray, in an explicit and realistic way any act which results in, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals . The prosecution claimed three images, found in attachments in Walsh’s sent box, showed urethreal sounding, where a medical instrument is inserted into the tip of the penis to stretch the urethra and stimulate the prostate, acts that were likely to cause injury to a person’s genitals. Two images showed anal fisting, which was likely to cause injury to a person’s anus, it claimed. The defence argued there was no evidence of any serious injury in any of those images, and that the activities were low risk. Walsh had taken the urethral sounding images himself at a New Year’s Eve party and sent them only to other participants at the party, the court heard. Medical evidence was examined showing that there were risks in these activities, but these risks were not generally ‘likely’ to occur. A sixth charge, of possessing an indecent image of an underage boy, related to an attachment sent to Walsh which showed a sexually aroused male with a ligature. Walsh told the court he had no recollection of ever opening the attachment on the email, which was unsolicited and unanswered. The defence claimed the image was not of a child but an adult. It was also not possible to prove Walsh had opened the attachment, the court heard. Three defence experts viewed the image and stated in written reports that Jason was in his twenties. As a matter of legal procedure, the jury never heard this expert evidence. Instead they used their common sense and acquitted Walsh. Prosecutor Thomas Wilkins told the court Walsh was a gay man who has what he described as a strange sex life . Wilkins said: He doesn’t dispute that he uses the email account purely for his sex life. He doesn’t dispute that he is interested in bondage and sadomasochism.There was no dispute that Walsh had sent three of the images, but, added Wilkins, he disputes that they are extreme or pornographic . Trial Report: The acquittal of Simon Walsh at Kingston Crown Court See  article from  heresycorner.blogspot.com Trial Report: Prosecutors, extreme porn and 50 Shades of Grey See  article from  politics.co.uk by Alex Dymock Comment: Extreme porn trial: consensual sex and the state See  article from  guardian.co.uk by Defence Lawyer Myles Jackman Unlike the Obscene Publication Act, which covers distribution, the CJIA shifts the burden on to individuals in possession of pornography. People need to know how to modify their behaviour in accordance with the law, yet it is unclear what acts constituteextreme pornography . As well as criminalising acts which are legal to perform, the CJIA would seemingly outlaw images which have been exhibited in art galleries. In 2008, the Barbican Gallery’s Seduced exhibition included photographic images of male on male anal fisting and male urethral insertion from artist Robert Mapplethorpe’s X Portfolio. The gallery cleared them with the City of London police before the exhibition opened. Police also regularly misclassify images they discover. In the Stafford extreme pornography trial, my client was initially charged with being in possession of over 1,250 extreme images. Upon viewing them, it became clear that over 900 were of clothed performers not engaging in any form of sexual activity. That defendant was eventually acquitted by a jury of all charges. So, would you even know what material might be illegal? Have you been sent junk emails and not opened them? How much do you know about operating systems caching images attached to unopened emails? Comment: Why the porn trial verdict is no reason to celebrate See  article from  blog.indexoncensorship.org by Jane Fae Red faces over at the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police, as a jury took under three hours to clear former aide to London Mayor Boris Johnson , Simon Walsh of a string of charges brought under extreme porn laws. Indeed, were Twitter an accurate reflection of the nation’s views on a topic, Keir Starmer, Head of the CPS and all those involved in the prosecution would this afternoon be looking for new jobs: such has been the mix of disbelief and outrage that public money and police time should be wasted on footling state attempts to interfere in the private lives of consenting adults. … The effect of this [extreme porn] law is pernicious. It doesn’t seem to have done much to stem the tide of porn that so many politicians obsess about. It has given police and prosecution another stick with which to beat the unwary — and to punish them should they not be punishable for any other crime. … For all that this result has been embarrassing to the CPS, they continue to make progress on what is beginning to feel like a serious moral agenda at the heart of their practice.  Calls for review of prosecuting practice have followed swiftly.  Ian Dunt, of politics.co.uk, thinks it is time to look again at the culture within the CPS. Ben Goldacre wonders aloud whether it is mere coincidence that a lawyer who has made a career of bringing corrupt police officers to book should be the target of such legal manoeuvring, also suggestingwe need an inquiry into why CPS and police keep bring these [cases]. Comment: The shameful and nasty prosecution of Simon Walsh See  article from  newstatesman.com by David Allen Green It was a sensible jury decision, and one well-deserved by Walsh and his fine legal team. But this is a matter which should never have got before a jury, for this was a shameful and nasty prosecution of a good man. The law is bad to begin with. The offence in its entirety is dealt with over four sections of the relevant statute, and is perhaps the most complex as well as one of the most illiberal prohibitions in criminal law. However, the effect of the law is stark: possession of certainextreme pornographic images of adults is a serious crime even if the acts portrayed are consensual or staged.