UK Parliament / Open data

Defamation Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lucas (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 January 2013. It occurred during Debate on bills and Committee proceeding on Defamation Bill.

My Lords, I am slightly sad that this privilege should not be extended to the Daily Mail, if one can imagine how that would work. I am concerned that the definition of “journal” should be wide enough. There are a lot of what might be called open-access journals now, rather than just the ones that are paid for, and I find them much more useful because I can actually get to read what is in them rather than being asked to pay £20 a time to see if what is in there is of interest to me. As the amendments point out, there are a number of websites that serve very similar functions, where intense discussions take place.

Even with regard to the Bill, how much does the word “journal” cover? Would it include Scientific American, for instance, or similar publications? At what point does something stop being a journal and start being a magazine or a publication that is ineligible under this part of the Bill?

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
742 c234GC 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top