1.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
2.
Hitchens L. Broadcasting pluralism and diversity: a comparative study of policy and regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2006.
3.
Lee C. Bollinger, Jr. Freedom of the Press and Public Access: Toward a Theory of Partial Regulation of the Mass Media. Michigan Law Review [Internet]. The Michigan Law Review Association; 75(1):1–42. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1287849
4.
US Supreme Court. Reno v ACLU (1997) 521 US 844 [Internet]. 1997. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5BGK-W1K1-DYBP-W2KF&csi=274794&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
5.
High Court of Australia. Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick 1 LRC 368 [Internet]. 2002. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=531V-T6P1-DYJ0-8137&csi=280207&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
6.
Jacob Rowbottom. Media Freedom and Political Debate in the Digital Era. The Modern Law Review [Internet]. Wiley; 69(4):489–513. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877224
7.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
8.
Stewart P. Or of the press. Hastings Law Journal [Internet]. University of California Hastings College of Law; 26(3):631–637. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fhastlj&collection=journals
9.
Barendt EM. Freedom of speech [Internet]. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001
10.
Thomas Gibbons. Freedom of the press: ownership and editorial values. Public Law. 100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF: Sweet & Maxwell; 1992;279–299.
11.
House of Lords Communications Committee. The Ownership of the News - First Report of 2007-8, HL 122 [Internet]. 2008. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldcomuni/ldcomuni.htm
12.
European Convention on Human Rights & fundamental freedoms [Internet]. European Court of Human Rights; 1950. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer
13.
Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom (Application 13585/88) 14 EHRR 153 [Internet]. Observer and Guardian v UK. Court: European Court of Human Rights; 1991. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXM-YJM0-TWW4-21NF&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
14.
McGregor OR, Great Britain. Royal Commission on the Press - Final Report. London: H.M.S.O.; 1977.
15.
Lichtenberg J. Democracy and the mass media: a collection of essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
16.
Anderson DA. Freedom of the Press. Texas Law Review [Internet]. 2002;80(3):429–530. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=bth&AN=6306076&site=ehost-live&scope=site
17.
Association Ekin v France (Application No 39288/98) 35 EHRR 1207 [Internet]. Court: European Court of Human Rights. 2002. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=7XP6-W3W0-Y9D2-B0M5&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
18.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
19.
Robertson G, Nicol AGL. Media law. 5th ed. London: Penguin; 2008.
20.
Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court). R on the application of Anna Ford v PCC EMLR 95 [2002] EMLR 5 [Internet]. 2002. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I79468360E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
21.
Leveson LJ. The Leveson Report, Executive Summary HC 779 [Internet]. National Archives; 2012. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/
22.
Barendt E. Statutory Underpinning: A Threat to Press Freedom Media Law after Leveson. Journal of Media Law [Internet]. Hart Publishing; 2013;5(2). Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fjoomaw&collection=journals
23.
Leveson LJ. The Leveson Report, Executive Summary [Internet]. National Archives; 2012. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/
24.
Leveson Report: Cross Party Royal Charter [Internet]. UK Government; 2013. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leveson-report-cross-party-royal-charter
25.
The Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO) [Internet]. IPSO; Available from: https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/whoweare.html
26.
IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice [Internet]. IPSO; Available from: https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html
27.
Press Complaints Commission Editors’ Code of Practice [Internet]. Press Complaints Commission; Available from: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
28.
Leveson LJ. The Leveson Report [Internet]. National Archives; 2012. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/
29.
Leveson LJ. The Leveson Report [Internet]. National Archives; 2012. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/
30.
Leveson Report: Cross Party Royal Charter [Internet]. UK Government; 2013. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/leveson-report-cross-party-royal-charter
31.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
32.
Robertson G, Nicol AGL. Media law. 5th ed. London: Penguin; 2008.
33.
British Board of Film Classification guidelines [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/
34.
British Board of Film Classification. BBFC policy statement, sexual and sadistic violence [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/research
35.
UK Government. Video Recordings Act 1984 [Internet]. 1984. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/39/contents
36.
European Court of Human Rights. Wingrove v UK (17419/90), 24 EHRR 1 [Internet]. 1997. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=I08BF5580E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&crumb-action=reset&entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fshib-idp.ucl.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth
37.
Williams B. Report of the Committee on obscenity and film censorship. London: H.M.S.O.; 1979.
38.
British Board of Film Classification. Report on effects of sexual and sadistic violence in films [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/research
39.
European Court of Human Rights. Otto-Preminger Institute v Austria (A/295-A), 19 EHRR 34 [Internet]. 1994. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I14CC5090E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
40.
R v Video Appeals Committee of the BBFC, ex parte the BBFC, EMLR 850 [Internet]. 2000. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=59MP-VFV1-DYBP-P1FV&csi=274662&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
41.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
42.
A public service for all: the BBC in the digital age (Cm 6763, 2006) [Internet]. UK Government; 2006. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-public-service-for-all-the-bbc-in-the-digital-age
43.
House of Lords Select Committee on BBC Charter Review. The Review of the BBC’s Royal Charter (2005, HL Paper 50-1) [Internet]. 2005. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5002.htm
44.
Dept of National Heritage, British Broadcasting Corporation. Broadcasting: copy of Royal Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation. London: HMSO; 1996.
45.
Dept for Culture, Media and Sport. Broadcasting: an agreement between Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC. London: TSO; 2006.
46.
Communications Act 2003 [Internet]. 2003. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents
47.
BBC. BBC Annual Report 2012/13 - Overview [Internet]. BBC Trust; 2013. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2013/annual_report.html
48.
Born G, Prosser T. Culture and Consumerism: Citizenship, Public Service Broadcasting and the BBC’s Fair Trading Obligations. The Modern Law Review [Internet]. Wiley; 64(5):657–687. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1097275
49.
Vick DW. Regulatory convergence? Legal Studies. 26(1):26–64.
50.
Queen’s Bench Division. R v BBC, ex parte Referendum Party, EMLR 605 [Internet]. 1997. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I333CFA70E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
51.
Dept of Culture, Media and Sport. Details of Culture, Media and Sport select committee inquiry - The Future of the BBC [Internet]. Available from: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/131022-future-of-the-bbc-tor/
52.
Culture, Media & Sport Committee. BBC Licence Fee Settlement and Annual Report - Fourth Report [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/454/45402.htm
53.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
54.
Robertson G, Nicol AGL. Media law. 5th ed. London: Penguin; 2008.
55.
Communications Act 2003 [Internet]. 2003. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents
56.
OFCOM. OFCOM Broadcasting Code [Internet]. Available from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
57.
OFCOM. OFCOM dismissal of complaints against Jerry Springer - the Opera [Internet]. OFCOM Broadcasting Bulletin; 9AD. Available from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/pcb61/
58.
House of Lords. R (On the Application of Pro-Life Alliance) v BBC, 1 AC 185 (Hoffmann, Scott) [Internet]. 2004. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7ECA41A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
59.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Gaunt v OFCOM, EWCA Civ 692, 1 WLR 2355 [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5F0750B0993B11E0AD16BA3024D1BECD&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
60.
Hitchens L. Broadcasting pluralism and diversity: a comparative study of policy and regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2006.
61.
OFCOM. OFCOM Broadcasting Code [Internet]. Available from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
62.
BBC Trust. From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century [Internet]. 2007. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
63.
UK Government. Broadcasting Act 1990 [Internet]. 1990. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/contents
64.
Hare I. Insulting Politicians on the Radio? Journal of Media Law. 4(1):29–34.
65.
House of Lords Communications Committee. Media Convergence - Second Report [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldcomuni/154/15402.htm
66.
Fielden L. Regulating for trust in journalism: standards regulation in the age of blended media [Internet]. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism; 2011. Available from: http://copac.ac.uk/search?title=Regulating%20for%20Trust%20in%20Journalism&rn=1
67.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
68.
Queen’s Bench Division. R v ASA, ex parte Charles Robertson, EMLR 463 [Internet]. 2000. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I2ED2E991E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
69.
Committee of Advertising Practice. UK Code of Non-Broadcasting Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing [Internet]. Available from: http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-Broadcast.aspx
70.
OFCOM. Code on the Scheduling of Television Advertising [Internet]. Available from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/advert-code/
71.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
72.
VGT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland, 34 EHRR 4 [Internet]. VGT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland. 2002. Available from: 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
73.
R (On the Application of ADI) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, 1 AC 1312 [Internet]. Official Transcript. 2008. Available from: 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
74.
European Court of Human Rights. Animal Defenders International v UK, European Court decision of 22 April 2013 [Internet]. 22AD. Available from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119244
75.
Robertson G, Nicol AGL. Media law. 5th ed. London: Penguin; 2008.
76.
Hitchens L. Broadcasting pluralism and diversity: a comparative study of policy and regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2006.
77.
Chancery Division. DGFT v Tobyward, 2 All ER 266 - [1989] 1 W.L.R. 517 [Internet]. 1989. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9943DD31E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
78.
Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court). R v ASA, ex parte Matthias Rath, EMLR 581 [Internet]. 2001. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7A529C30E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
79.
Colin R. Munro. Self-regulation in the media. Public Law. 100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF: Sweet & Maxwell; (1):6–17.
80.
Committee of Advertising Practice. BCAP Television Advertising Code [Internet]. Available from: http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Broadcast.aspx
81.
European Court of Human Rights. TV Vest and Pensioners Party v Norway, 48 EHRR 51 [Internet]. 2009. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8DD21A00403311DEB8B88BCF555915D2&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
82.
Andrew Scott. ‘A Monstrous and Unjustifiable Infringement’?: Political Expression and the Broadcasting Ban on Advocacy Advertising. The Modern Law Review [Internet]. Wiley; 66(2):224–244. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1097625
83.
Rowbottom J. Animal Defenders International: Speech, Spending, and a Change of Direction in Strasbourg. Journal of Media Law. 5(1):1–13.
84.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
85.
Communications Act 2003 [Internet]. 2003. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents
86.
House of Lords Communications Committee. The Ownership of News [Internet]. 2008. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldcomuni/122/12202.htm
87.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division). BSkyB v Competition Commission, EWCA Civ 2 [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7F645240070B11DFBAF4824E29209369&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
88.
Smith RC, Tambini D. Measuring Media Plurality in the United Kingdom: Policy Choices and Regulatory Challenges. Journal of Media Law. 4(1):35–63.
89.
House of Lords Communications Committee. Media Plurality [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldcomm/120/12002.htm
90.
Hitchens L. Broadcasting pluralism and diversity: a comparative study of policy and regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2006.
91.
Rowbottom J. Democracy distorted: wealth, influence and democratic politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
92.
Craufurd Smith R. Reviewing Media Ownership Rules in the UK and Europe: Competing or Complementary Investigations? Journal of Media Law. 5(2):332–344.
93.
Arnott C. Media Mergers and the Meaning of Sufficient Plurality: A Tale of Two Acts. Journal of Media Law. 2(2):245–275.
94.
Dept for Culture, Media & Sport. OFCOM Report and other documents on News Corporation acquisition of BSkyB [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/7737.aspx
95.
Dept for Culture, Media & Sport. Media ownership and plurality [Internet]. 2013. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/media-ownership-and-plurality
96.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
97.
Barendt EM. Freedom of speech [Internet]. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001
98.
Murray A. Information technology law: the law and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
99.
US Supreme Court. Reno v ACLU (1997) 521 US 844 [Internet]. 1997. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5BGK-W1K1-DYBP-W2KF&csi=274794&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
100.
Divisional Court. Chambers v DPP, EWHC 2157 (QB) [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I96CC0DB1D86411E18BFAEAE7E8BE854C&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
101.
Communications Act 2003 [Internet]. 2003. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents
102.
Jacob Rowbottom. Media Freedom and Political Debate in the Digital Era. The Modern Law Review [Internet]. Wiley; 69(4):489–513. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877224
103.
Internet Watch Foundation [Internet]. Available from: http://www.iwf.org.uk/services/blocking
104.
House of Lords Communications Committee. Media Convergence - Second Report [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldcomuni/154/15402.htm
105.
Hitchens L. Broadcasting pluralism and diversity: a comparative study of policy and regulation. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2006.
106.
Price ME. The Newness of New Technology. Cardozo Law Review [Internet]. Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; 22(5–6):1885–1913. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fcdozo&collection=journals
107.
Edwards L, Waelde C. Law and the Internet. 3rd ed. Oxford: Hart; 2009.
108.
Jack L. Goldsmith. Against Cyberanarchy. The University of Chicago Law Review [Internet]. The University of Chicago Law Review; 65(4):1199–1250. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1600262
109.
The Authority for Television on Demand. Authority for Television on Demand (ATVOD) Rules [Internet]. Available from: http://www.atvod.co.uk/rules-and-guidance
110.
Barendt EM, et al. Media law: text, cases and materials. Harlow: Pearson; 2014.
111.
Barendt EM. Freedom of speech [Internet]. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001
112.
High Court of Australia. Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick 1 LRC 368 [Internet]. 2002. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=531V-T6P1-DYJ0-8137&csi=280207&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
113.
Queen’s Bench Division. Bunt v Tilley, 3 All ER 336 [Internet]. 2006. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7D5A7A71E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
114.
Queen’s Bench Division. Metropolitan International Schools v Designtechnica EWHC 1765 (QB), EMLR 27 [Internet]. 2009. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9AB8083075A111DE8908AB881D7C0247&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
115.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Tamiz v Google Inc, EWCA Civ 308, EMLR 14 [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA400CDA0771911E2BDD5EE83071B65AA&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
116.
Defamation Act 2013 [Internet]. UK Government; 2013. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
117.
R v Perrin, EWCA Crim 747, All ER (D) 359 (Mar) [Internet]. Court: Court of Appeal. 2002. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXP-Y980-TWW4-20VV&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
118.
R v Bowden, 2 All ER 418 [Internet]. 2000. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4CSP-4J80-TWP1-6013&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
119.
Birnhack MD, Rowbottom JH. Shielding Children: The European Way Symposium: Do Children Have the Same First Amendment Rights as Adults. Chicago-Kent Law Review [Internet]. Chicago-Kent College of Law; 2004;79(1):175–227. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fchknt&collection=journals
120.
BBC News. Google and Microsoft agree steps to block abuse images [Internet]. BBC News; 18AD. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24980765
121.
Muir Watt H. Yahoo Cyber-Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates (Special Feature - Cyberage Conflicts Law). Michigan Journal Of International Law [Internet]. University of Michigan Law School; 24(3):673–696. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fmjil&collection=journals
122.
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd, QB 201 [Internet]. 2001. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4K3D-RRG0-TXD5-X0YC&csi=296982&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
123.
Divisional Court. Atkins, Goodland v DPP, 2 All ER 425 [Internet]. 2000. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I687E0E01E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
124.
R v Porter, EWCA Crim 560, 2 All ER 625 [Internet]. Court: Court of Appeal. 2006. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4JHK-XM70-TWW4-20H5&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
