‘A Public Service for All: The BBC in the Digital Age (Cm 6763, 2006)’. 2006. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-public-service-for-all-the-bbc-in-the-digital-age.
Anderson, David A. 2002. ‘Freedom of the Press’. Texas Law Review 80 (3): 429–530. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=bth&AN=6306076&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Andrew Scott. n.d. ‘“A Monstrous and Unjustifiable Infringement”?: Political Expression and the Broadcasting Ban on Advocacy Advertising’. The Modern Law Review 66 (2): 224–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1097625.
Arnott, Craig. n.d. ‘Media Mergers and the Meaning of Sufficient Plurality: A Tale of Two Acts’. Journal of Media Law 2 (2): 245–75. https://doi.org/10.5235/175776310794389373.
Association Ekin v France (Application No 39288/98) 35 EHRR 1207. 2002. Court: European Court of Human Rights. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=7XP6-W3W0-Y9D2-B0M5&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
Barendt, E.M. 2007a. Freedom of Speech. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001.
———. 2007b. Freedom of Speech. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001.
———. 2007c. Freedom of Speech. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001.
Barendt, Eric. 2013. ‘Statutory Underpinning: A Threat to Press Freedom Media Law after Leveson’. Journal of Media Law 5 (2). http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fjoomaw&collection=journals.
Barendt, Eric M., and et al. 2014a. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014b. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014c. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014d. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014e. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014f. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014g. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014h. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014i. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014j. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
———. 2014k. Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Vol. Longman law series. Harlow: Pearson.
BBC. 2013a. ‘BBC Annual Report 2012/13 - Overview’. BBC Trust. 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2013/annual_report.html.
BBC News. 18AD. ‘Google and Microsoft Agree Steps to Block Abuse Images’. BBC News. 18AD. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24980765.
BBC Trust. 2007. ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html.
Birnhack, Michael D., and Jacob H. Rowbottom. 2004. ‘Shielding Children: The European Way Symposium: Do Children Have the Same First Amendment Rights as Adults’. Chicago-Kent Law Review 79 (1): 175–227. http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fchknt&collection=journals.
Born, Georgina, and Tony Prosser. n.d. ‘Culture and Consumerism: Citizenship, Public Service Broadcasting and the BBC’s Fair Trading Obligations’. The Modern Law Review 64 (5): 657–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1097275.
British Board of Film Classification. n.d. ‘BBFC Policy Statement, Sexual and Sadistic Violence’. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/research.
———. n.d. ‘Report on Effects of Sexual and Sadistic Violence in Films’. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/research.
‘British Board of Film Classification Guidelines’. n.d. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/.
Chancery Division. 1989. DGFT v Tobyward, 2 All ER 266 - [1989] 1 W.L.R. 517.
Colin R. Munro. n.d. ‘Self-Regulation in the Media’. Public Law, no. 1: 6–17.
Committee of Advertising Practice. n.d. ‘BCAP Television Advertising Code’. http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Broadcast.aspx.
———. n.d. ‘UK Code of Non-Broadcasting Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing’. http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-Broadcast.aspx.
‘Communications Act 2003’. 2003a. 2003. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents.
‘———’. 2003b. 2003. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents.
‘———’. 2003c. 2003. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents.
‘———’. 2003d. 2003. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division). 2010. BSkyB v Competition Commission, EWCA Civ 2.
———. 2011. Gaunt v OFCOM, EWCA Civ 692, 1 WLR 2355.
———. 2013. Tamiz v Google Inc, EWCA Civ 308, EMLR 14.
Craufurd Smith, Rachael. n.d. ‘Reviewing Media Ownership Rules in the UK and Europe: Competing or Complementary Investigations?’ Journal of Media Law 5 (2): 332–44. https://doi.org/10.5235/17577632.5.2.332.
Culture, Media & Sport Committee. 2011a. ‘BBC Licence Fee Settlement and Annual Report - Fourth Report’. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/454/45402.htm.
‘Defamation Act 2013’. 2013. UK Government. 2013. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted.
Dept for Culture, Media & Sport. 2011b. ‘OFCOM Report and Other Documents on News Corporation Acquisition of BSkyB’. 2011. http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/7737.aspx.
———. 2013b. ‘Media Ownership and Plurality’. 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/media-ownership-and-plurality.
Dept for Culture, Media and Sport. 2006. Broadcasting: An Agreement between Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC. Vol. Cm 6872. London: TSO.
Dept of Culture, Media and Sport. n.d. ‘Details of Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Inquiry - The Future of the BBC’. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/131022-future-of-the-bbc-tor/.
Dept of National Heritage and British Broadcasting Corporation. 1996. Broadcasting: Copy of Royal Charter for the Continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Vol. Cm 6925. London: HMSO.
Divisional Court. 2000. Atkins, Goodland v DPP, 2 All ER 425.
———. 2012. Chambers v DPP, EWHC 2157 (QB).
Edwards, Lilian, and Charlotte Waelde. 2009. Law and the Internet. 3rd ed. Oxford: Hart.
‘European Convention on Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms’. 1950. European Court of Human Rights. http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer.
European Court of Human Rights. 22AD. ‘Animal Defenders International v UK, European Court Decision of 22 April 2013’. 22AD. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119244.
———. 1994. Otto-Preminger Institute v Austria (A/295-A), 19 EHRR 34.
———. 1997a. Wingrove v UK (17419/90), 24 EHRR 1.
———. 2009. TV Vest and Pensioners Party v Norway, 48 EHRR 51.
Fielden, Lara. 2011. Regulating for Trust in Journalism: Standards Regulation in the Age of Blended Media. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. http://copac.ac.uk/search?title=Regulating%20for%20Trust%20in%20Journalism&rn=1.
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd, QB 201. 2001. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4K3D-RRG0-TXD5-X0YC&csi=296982&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
Hare, Ivan. n.d. ‘Insulting Politicians on the Radio?’ Journal of Media Law 4 (1): 29–34. https://doi.org/10.5235/175776312802483899.
High Court of Australia. 2002a. Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick 1 LRC 368. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=531V-T6P1-DYJ0-8137&csi=280207&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
———. 2002b. Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick 1 LRC 368. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=531V-T6P1-DYJ0-8137&csi=280207&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
Hitchens, Lesley. 2006a. Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
———. 2006b. Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
———. 2006c. Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
———. 2006d. Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
———. 2006e. Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
House of Lords. 2004. R (On the Application of Pro-Life Alliance) v BBC, 1 AC 185 (Hoffmann, Scott).
House of Lords Communications Committee. 2008a. ‘The Ownership of News’. 2008. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldcomuni/122/12202.htm.
———. 2008b. ‘The Ownership of the News - First Report of 2007-8, HL 122’. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldcomuni/ldcomuni.htm.
———. 2013c. ‘Media Convergence - Second Report’. 2013. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldcomuni/154/15402.htm.
———. 2013d. ‘Media Convergence - Second Report’. 2013. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldcomuni/154/15402.htm.
———. 2014. ‘Media Plurality’. 2014. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldcomm/120/12002.htm.
House of Lords Select Committee on BBC Charter Review. 2005. ‘The Review of the BBC’s Royal Charter (2005, HL Paper 50-1)’. 2005. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5002.htm.
‘Internet Watch Foundation’. n.d. http://www.iwf.org.uk/services/blocking.
‘IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice’. n.d. IPSO. https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html.
Jack L. Goldsmith. n.d. ‘Against Cyberanarchy’. The University of Chicago Law Review 65 (4): 1199–1250. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1600262.
Jacob Rowbottom. n.d. ‘Media Freedom and Political Debate in the Digital Era’. The Modern Law Review 69 (4): 489–513. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877224.
———. n.d. ‘Media Freedom and Political Debate in the Digital Era’. The Modern Law Review 69 (4): 489–513. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877224.
Lee C. Bollinger, Jr. n.d. ‘Freedom of the Press and Public Access: Toward a Theory of Partial Regulation of the Mass Media’. Michigan Law Review 75 (1): 1–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1287849.
Leveson, Lord Justice. 2012a. ‘The Leveson Report’. National Archives. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/.
———. 2012b. ‘The Leveson Report’. National Archives. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/.
———. 2012c. ‘The Leveson Report, Executive Summary’. National Archives. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/.
———. 2012d. ‘The Leveson Report, Executive Summary HC 779’. National Archives. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/.
‘Leveson Report: Cross Party Royal Charter’. 2013a. UK Government. 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leveson-report-cross-party-royal-charter.
‘———’. 2013b. UK Government. 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leveson-report-cross-party-royal-charter.
Lichtenberg, Judith. 1990. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Vol. Cambridge studies in philosophy and public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGregor, O.R. and Great Britain. 1977. Royal Commission on the Press - Final Report. Vol. Cmnd 6810. London: H.M.S.O.
Muir Watt, Horatia. n.d. ‘Yahoo Cyber-Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates (Special Feature - Cyberage Conflicts Law)’. Michigan Journal Of International Law 24 (3): 673–96. http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fmjil&collection=journals.
Murray, Andrew. 2010. Information Technology Law: The Law and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom (Application 13585/88) 14 EHRR 153. 1991. Observer and Guardian v UK. Court: European Court of Human Rights. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXM-YJM0-TWW4-21NF&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
OFCOM. 9AD. ‘OFCOM Dismissal of Complaints against Jerry Springer - the Opera’. OFCOM Broadcasting Bulletin. 9AD. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/pcb61/.
———. n.d. ‘Code on the Scheduling of Television Advertising’. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/advert-code/.
———. n.d. ‘OFCOM Broadcasting Code’. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/.
———. n.d. ‘OFCOM Broadcasting Code’. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/.
‘Press Complaints Commission Editors’ Code of Practice’. n.d. Press Complaints Commission. http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html.
Price, Monroe E. n.d. ‘The Newness of New Technology’. Cardozo Law Review 22 (5–6): 1885–1913. http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fcdozo&collection=journals.
Queen’s Bench Division. 1997. R v BBC, ex parte Referendum Party, EMLR 605.
———. 2000. R v ASA, Ex Parte Charles Robertson, EMLR 463. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I2ED2E991E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth.
———. 2006. Bunt v Tilley, 3 All ER 336.
———. 2009. Metropolitan International Schools v Designtechnica EWHC 1765 (QB), EMLR 27.
Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court). 2001. R v ASA, ex parte Matthias Rath, EMLR 581.
———. 2002. R on the application of Anna Ford v PCC EMLR 95 [2002] EMLR 5.
R (On the Application of ADI) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, 1 AC 1312. 2008. Official Transcript. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IF99845A0F0C211DC810BBB39FEDB30E7&crumb-action=reset&entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fshib-idp.ucl.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth.
R v Bowden, 2 All ER 418. 2000. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4CSP-4J80-TWP1-6013&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
R v Perrin, EWCA Crim 747, All ER (D) 359 (Mar). 2002. Court: Court of Appeal. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXP-Y980-TWW4-20VV&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
R v Porter, EWCA Crim 560, 2 All ER 625. 2006. Court: Court of Appeal. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4JHK-XM70-TWW4-20H5&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
R v Video Appeals Committee of the BBFC, Ex Parte the BBFC, EMLR 850. 2000. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=59MP-VFV1-DYBP-P1FV&csi=274662&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
Robertson, Geoffrey, and Andrew G.L. Nicol. 2008a. Media Law. 5th ed. London: Penguin.
———. 2008b. Media Law. 5th ed. London: Penguin.
———. 2008c. Media Law. 5th ed. London: Penguin.
———. 2008d. Media Law. 5th ed. London: Penguin.
Rowbottom, Jacob. 2010. Democracy Distorted: Wealth, Influence and Democratic Politics. Vol. The law in context series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. n.d. ‘Animal Defenders International: Speech, Spending, and a Change of Direction in Strasbourg’. Journal of Media Law 5 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5235/17577632.5.1.1.
Smith, Rachael Craufurd, and Damian Tambini. n.d. ‘Measuring Media Plurality in the United Kingdom: Policy Choices and Regulatory Challenges’. Journal of Media Law 4 (1): 35–63. https://doi.org/10.5235/175776312802483862.
Stewart, Potter. n.d. ‘Or of the Press’. Hastings Law Journal 26 (3): 631–37. http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fhastlj&collection=journals.
The Authority for Television on Demand. n.d. ‘Authority for Television on Demand (ATVOD) Rules’. http://www.atvod.co.uk/rules-and-guidance.
‘The Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO)’. n.d. IPSO. https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/whoweare.html.
Thomas Gibbons. 1992. ‘Freedom of the Press: Ownership and Editorial Values’. Public Law, 279–99.
UK Government. 1984. ‘Video Recordings Act 1984’. 1984. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/39/contents.
———. 1990. ‘Broadcasting Act 1990’. 1990. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/contents.
US Supreme Court. 1997b. Reno v ACLU (1997) 521 US 844. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5BGK-W1K1-DYBP-W2KF&csi=274794&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
———. 1997c. Reno v ACLU (1997) 521 US 844. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5BGK-W1K1-DYBP-W2KF&csi=274794&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t.
VGT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland, 34 EHRR 4. 2002. VGT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE73CB0B0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&crumb-action=reset&entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fshib-idp.ucl.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth.
Vick, Douglas W. n.d. ‘Regulatory Convergence?’ Legal Studies 26 (1): 26–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2006.00005.x.
Williams, Bernard. 1979. Report of the Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship. Vol. Cmnd 7772. London: H.M.S.O.
