Late last year, WikiLeaks began lobbying the Icelandic parliament to consider a series of bills, which if passed would transform Iceland into a journalistic haven.

The new laws would be modeled on the kind of shady tax laws that tax havens offer the rich. Under the WikiLeaks’ proposal, Iceland would offer sources and journalists a strong package of legal protections thereby establishing itself as a sanctuary for free speech.

Wikileaks’ proposed laws are based on a pick-a-mix approach to the freedom of speech laws around the world: “So we could just say we’re taking the source protection laws from Sweden … the First Amendment from the United States, (and) Belgium’s protection laws for journalists,” said WikiLeaks’ Daniel Schmitt at the Chaos Communication Congress (26C3) that took place last week in Berlin.

If Iceland passes Wikileaks’ laws they will be setting a precedent for press freedom in a time of tumultuous debates about the rights of bloggers and the role of the internet in journalism. They will also further legitimise WikiLeaks’ position within that debate, and guarantee them a prominent place within the future of journalists.

The Supreme Court in Canada has overhauled the country’s libel laws and ruled that a journalist cannot be sued for libel if they can prove that they have taken every step to check the veracity of their story. The ruling has placed an emphasis on responsible journalism.

In a statement, the court said that free expression does not “confer a licence to ruin reputation,” but argued society is best served by fearless commentary and investigative journalism.

The new law also covers bloggers and citizen journalists.

Imagine a world where you can be sued for what you say on your blog. We are one step closer to that world today after a landmark ruling in New York that has forced Google to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who called the 37 year-old Canadian model Liskula Cohen a ‘skank’.

Cohen sought legal action against Google after a torrent of abusive comments were made on the Skanks in NYC blog. Cohen now plans to launch a libel case against the no longer anonymous blogger.

This is a worrying new development in the on-going war for online privacy. At a time when many in the supposed developed world are critical of the likes of Iran, China and Egypt for suppressing bloggers and access to social networking sites such as twitter, I think that what is happening quietly under our noses is of equal, if not greater, concern.

Since Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi throw his shoe at George W Bush he started a trend, a new way to show disrespect and disagreement.

But, neither Muntadhar or any of the subsequent shoe throwers actually managed hit their target. But last week an unnamed Swedish girl hit Benny Dagan, Israeli ambassador to Sweden, in the chest with her red Nike trainer as he was giving a lecture on Israel’s forthcoming elections at the University of Stockholm. As she was taken away by police she asked to have her shoe back.

One a more serious note, Muntadhar al-Zeidi is still in jail awaiting trail. Despite his harmless and eloquent display of anger at the Bush administration, under Iraqi law he can be charged. His plight must not be forgotten.

The terror laws are impacting how journalists, particularly photojournalists, are able to work.

Journalist Jason N Parkinson has made a film called “Collateral Damage” looking at the way the terror laws are effecting photojournalists. I just wonder how the rest of journalism will be effected.

Link to the film:

http://current.com/items/89284474/press_freedom_collateral_damage.htm

Under the Terrorism Act police are able to demand the camera of anyone deemed to be acting suspiciously. The police cannot delete any content but they can seize it.

The Met have launched an ad campaign asking the public to be wary of photographers…

Check out the Editorial Photographers UK (EPUK) version….