Workshop 1: Press freedom and freedom of speech
1. Justifications for free speech
E. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed., Oxford, OUP, 2005), 1-39.
H. Fenwick, G. Phillipson, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford,
OUP, 2006), 12-19.
O. O’Neil, ‘Regulating for Communication’, www.fljs.org, 24 July 2013.
2. Press freedom and freedom of speech
E. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed., Oxford, OUP, 2005), 419-424.
H. Fenwick, G. Phillipson, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford,
OUP, 2006), 20-33.
3. Press freedom and the courts
3.1 ECHR
Axel Springer AG v Germany [2012] ECHR 227
Von Hannover v Germany (No. 2) (2012) 55 EHRR 15
Stoll v Switzerland (2008) 47 EHRR 59
Von Hannover v Germany (No. 1) (2005) 40 EHRR 1
3.2 UK
Douglas v Hello! [2005] EWCA Civ 595
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
Workshop 2: Press regulation in a comparative perspective
1. The UK
1.1 Before Leveson
J. Coad, ‘The Press Complaints Commission – are we safe in its hands?’ (2005) 16 (7)
Entertainment Law Review 167.
B. Jordan, ‘Self-regulation and the British press’ (2011) 22 (8) Entertainment Law
Review 242.
1.2 After Leveson
G. Brock, ‘The Leveson Inquiry: There’s a bargain to be struck over media freedom
and regulation’ (2012) 13 (4) Journalism 519
P. Charnley, ‘Hack-gate: examining the phone-hacking scandal and its repercussions
for press regulation in the UK’ (2012) 7 (3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and
Practice 211.
S. Fengler, ‘From media self-regulation to crowd criticism: Media accountability in
the digital age’ (2012) 2 Central European Journal of Communication 175,
http://ptks.pl/cejc/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CEJC_Vol5_No2_Fengler.pdf, 24 July
2013.
A. Higgins, ‘Legal Lessons from the News of the World phone hacking scandal’
(2012) 31 (3) Civil Justice Quarterly 274.
C. Potter, ‘Press Regulation: All you need to know’ (2013) 24 British Journalism
Review 15-23.
P. Wragg, ‘Time to end the tyranny: Leveson and the failure of the fourth estate’
(2013) Communications Law 11.
2. Germany
A. Czepek, M. Hellwig, E. Nowak, ‘Pre-Conditions for Press Freedom in Germany’
in A. Czepek, M. Hellwig, E. Nowak (eds), Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe.
Concepts and Conditions (Intellect, Bristol, 2009), www.intellectbooks.co.uk, 3 July
2013.
L. Fielden, ‘Regulating the Press: A Comparative Study of International Press
Councils’, April 2012,
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Working_P
apers/Regulating_the_Press.pdf, 24 July 2013, p. 35-36; 108-109.
S. Müller, C. Gusy, Background information report. Media policies and regulatory
practices in a selected set of European countries, the EU and the Council of Europe:
The case of Germany, 2010, http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/publication/1958177, 24 July
2013, p.
H. Sousa, W. Trützschler, J. Fidalgo, M. Lameiras (eds.), Media Regulators in
Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis, March 2013,
http://www.comunicacao.uminho.pt/cecs/, 24 July 2013, p.
C. Witteman, ‘Constitutionalising Communications: The German Constitutional
Court’s jurisprudence of communications freedom’ (2010) 33 (95) Hastings Int’l and
Comp. L. Rev. 95.
3. Ireland
A. Deil, Privacy and Press Freedom of Ireland, 2012, http://www.grin.com/en/ebook/195690/privacy-and-press-freedom-of-ireland, 5 September 2013.
L. Fielden, ‘Regulating the Press: A Comparative Study of International Press
Councils’, April 2012,
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Working_P
apers/Regulating_the_Press.pdf, 24 July 2013, p. 36-37; 114-115.
W. Gore, J. Horgan, ‘Maintaining freedom with responsibility. The evolving role of
non-statutory press councils in a changing media landscape’ (2004) 4 (4) Journalism
Practice 523.
Press Council of Ireland, A new Charter for the press and people in Ireland, 2007,
www.presscouncil.ie, 5 September 2013.
4. Australia
L. Fielden, ‘Regulating the Press: A Comparative Study of International Press
Councils’, April 2012,
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Working_P
apers/Regulating_the_Press.pdf, 24 July 2013, p. 37-38; 116-117.
T. Flew, A. Swift, ‘Regulating journalists? The Finkelstein review, the Convergence
review, and news media regulation in Australia’ (2013) 2 (1) Journal of Applied
Journalism and Media Studies 181.
J. Given, ‘Australia’s Convergence Review’ (2012) 3 (3) International Journal of
Digital Television 293.
Workshop 3: Convergence between press and broadcasting
1. Is the special regulation of broadcasting justified?
E. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed., Oxford, OUP, 2005), 444-449.
D.W. Vick, ‘Regulatory convergence?’ (2006) 26 Legal Studies 26.
2. Convergence between press and broadcasting
EPRA, ‘Plenary session – Content regulation and new media : Exploring
regulatory boundaries between traditional and new media’, 26-27 May 2011,
http://epra3production.s3.amazonaws.com/attachments/files/102/original/Ohrid_session1_rev
ised.final.pdf, 5 September 2013.
D. Mac Síthig, ‘Co-regulation, video-on-demand and the legal status of
audiovisual media’ (2011) 2 (1) International Journal of Digital Television 51.
Select Committee on Communications, Media Convergence, 2nd Report of Session
2012-13,
HL
Paper
154,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldcomuni/154/154.pd
f, 9 September 2013.
3. The Sun Video case
Ofcom, Sun Video decision
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/vod-services/sunvideo.pdf,
5 September 2013
S. Lawde, O. Wells, ‘ATVOD determined to do better’ (2012) 18 (4) Computer
and Telecommunications Law Review 102.
N. Pimlott, D. Lewis, ‘Regulation of video on demand services following the “Sun
Video” appeal’ (2012) 23 (3) Entertainment Law Review 65.
4. The Tiroler Tageszeitung case
Kommunikationsbehörde Austria, Bescheid, 9 October 2012,
https://www.rtr.at/en/m/KOA195012048/KOA_1.950-12-048.pdf, 5 September
2013 (in German).
Bundeskommunikationssenat, Bescheid, 13 December 2012,
http://www.bundeskanzleramt.at/DocView.axd?CobId=49930, 5 September 2013
(in German).
5.
The Tagesschau.app case
Landgericht Koeln, Urteil, 27 September 2012, http://openjur.de/u/536575.html, 5
September 2013 (in German).
K. Schmidtmann, ‘Die neue “heute”-App des ZDF – ein presseähniches Angebot?
– Zugleich eine Auseinandersetzung mit den Voraussetzungen des §11d Abs. 2
Nr. 3 RStV’ (2013) 7 Zeitschrift für Urheber-und Medienrecht 536 (in German).