﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>Media &amp; Entertainment</title>
    <description>Case law focusing on media and entertainment</description>
    <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/BlogId/746/Default.aspx</link>
    <language>en-GB</language>
    <webMaster>registration@casecheck.co.uk</webMaster>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 13:06:20 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 13:06:20 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <generator>Blog RSS Generator Version 0.0.0.0</generator>
    <item>
      <title>Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP (No. 2) [2010] UKSC 26</title>
      <description>Anonymity order continued where naming appellant would create risk of violence and intrusion into private life</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/16372/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/16372/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=16372</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:59:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=16372</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guardian News and Media Ltd &amp; Ors in HM Treasury v Ahmed &amp; Ors [2010] UKSC 1</title>
      <description>Terror suspect anonymity orders lifted where public interest in identification&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The five applicants were individuals subject to orders under terrorism legislation, with various freezing orders in place. All of the individuals had been granted anonymity, despite the identities of at least two being in the public domain. Balancing Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention, which were both engaged, on the facts, the powerful public interest in identification outweighed the potential negative effects on the individual's private lives. &lt;br /&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/15959/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/15959/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=15959</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:47:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=15959</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Animal Defenders International, R (On The Application of) v Secretary of State For Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15 (12 March 2008)</title>
      <description>Broadcasting: Prohibition on political advertising did not breach Article 10: The prohibition on political advertising contained in s.321(2) of the Communications Act 2003 was not incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, being properly designed to protect against the potential mischief of biased political advertising.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/14536/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/14536/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=14536</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=14536</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
