Der Journalist wird vor Gericht gestellt, nachdem er Pornos von Ex-MP auf x geteilt hatte
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/journalist-going-to-trial-after-highlighting-porn-shared-by-ex-mp-on-x/
Von Ophiuchus171
Der Journalist wird vor Gericht gestellt, nachdem er Pornos von Ex-MP auf x geteilt hatte
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/journalist-going-to-trial-after-highlighting-porn-shared-by-ex-mp-on-x/
Von Ophiuchus171
6 Kommentare
Another source – https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2025/02/13/former-editor-denies-sending-menacing-tweet-to-jewish-campaigner/
[removed]
Retired Brighton-based journalist Greg Hadfield will go to trial over drawing attention to an obscene [X](https://pressgazette.co.uk/subject/twitter/) message posted by the account of former Labour MP Ivor Caplin.
More like this journalist was trying to out a MP.
He was offered the chance to accept a caution, which he declined as he was [concerned it would lead to unfair stigma being attached to him](https://greghadfield.medium.com/revealed-zionism-abuse-pornography-and-worse-f080409f8606) through headlines like “award-winning journalist charged [with] online gay porn”.
Yeah he wanted the other guy to be getting those headlines. So unfair lol.
Can someone explain the tweet by the journalist as I don’t get it. Was the MP married to a woman and commenting on gay porn an accident or something with the journalist pointing it out?
The issue here is that you can’t post obscene content via a public network system regardless of your intentions. If, for example, a post was made on X along the lines of „look at the child pornography that this politician is viewing“ along with the picture or a link to the picture, then you are committing an offence. This is the case even if your intention is to draw attention to the politician’s paedophilia.
It’s insane to say a court should be deciding press freedom issue during the trial and the whole trial itself is a fast route to chilling journalistic speech.
Utterly ridiculous.