The rapid evolution of transgender issues prompted the Independent Press Standards Organisation to issue special guidance for journalists. Nearly all parts of the Editor’s Code might come into play. Journalists should ask whether the subject has made their transgender status public, and whether they have applied for formal recognition. Gender identity should only be mentioned if specifically relevant to the story, says IPSO. Read the guidance here.
Note: this story was uploaded to Media Law Matters before the implementation of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation directive, which toughens up data protection law, from May 2018.
Parents and even editors are afraid to talk about what goes on in the family courts, a freelance journalist declared at a debate on privacy versus accountability in this sensitive area. “A sense of fear pervades the system,” said Louise Tickle. Democracy suffered, the audience was told. Read more from The Transparency Project here.
Pictures and information may be considered private even if posted on sites such as Facebook, says new guidance from the Independent Press Standards Organisation on sourcing material from social media. It highlights issues of accuracy, privacy, children and grief under the Editors’ Code. Read the full guidance, with case studies and examples of rulings, here.
The Mail Online agreed to take down a video showing a bullying attack on a schoolgirl after the mother of one of the alleged bullies said it breached her daughter’s right to privacy. The Editor’s Code section on photographing children was also considered. The decision avoided the need for an IPSO ruling. Read more.
The 23rd edition of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists reflects the fast-moving legal and regulatory landscape for the media, say its authors in a blog post. Juvenile anonymity in court cases, privacy and human trafficking are all areas with key changes that journalists must know about, they say – as well as journalists’ own rights. Read more
The Lancashire Evening Post successfully challenged an attempt to prevent teenage twin girls from being named in print after a reign of racist behaviour on their housing estate. The girls were subject to a court order rather than being prosecuted for a crime, meaning they did not have automatic anonymity. Read more on HoldTheFrontPage, here.
A 14-year-old boy didn’t have a right to privacy when he was photographed apparently rioting, Supreme Court judges decided – though not unanimously. All agreed police were justified in releasing the image in order to identify him, though. Read more