Language is a tricky thing. It isn’t static, but evovles over time, by the introduction of new words, phrases, grammar and so on, and by movement in the meaning of words. New words are obvious, new meanings less so; moreover, as the new meaning becomes dominant, phrases using words in their old meanings either become unintelligible or are co-opted to the words’ new meanings. Most of the time, such shifts are subterranean, and matter little. But we should nevertheless be aware of this, so that we can make the necessary adjustments when it does matter. An example is provided by the front of today’s Sunday Independent Read the rest of this entry »

Now that An Taoiseach (the Prime Minister) has put us out of our misery and finally called the long-awaited general election, all Bills currently pending will fall with the outgoing Dáil (Lower House). Of those of particular interest to this blog, this means that the Defamation Bill, 2006 (Department of Justice | Oireachtas (pdf)) and the Privacy Bill, 2006 (Department of Justice | Oireachtas (pdf)) now both fall too, and their fate will have to await the pleasure of the incoming government in the next Dáil.

The fate of the Defamation Bill, in particular, raises an interesting question for the press industry. The Bill provided for the recognition of a Press Council; the press industry has advanced with the establishment of an Office of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council of Ireland in parallel with the passage of the Bill through the Houses of the Oireachtas (Parliament); and they will now have to decide whether to continue with this process now that the Bill has fallen. They could of course keep their powder dry until after the election, in the hope that the incoming government revives the Bill, and then press on with the formation of the Ombudsman and Council. But it would be a better indication of their bona fides in this matter if they carried on regardless, and established the Press Council before the next Dáil sits. Indeed, having done so, it would then give them the credibility to call for the Defamation Bill to be revived by the incoming government!

Kevin Jon Heller cuts right to the heart of what will happen now that the EU Criminalizes Racist and Xenophobic Speech:

The real problem with the Framework’s approach to racist and xenophobic speech is the profoundly chilling effect it will almost certainly have on such speakers. What rational artist or filmmaker will risk pushing the ideological envelope if she knows that the criminality of her speech depends not on her intent but on the (unpredictable) reactions of others to it?

Read the rest of this entry »

Over coffee at BarCamp last Saturday with Marie Boran (of Silicon Republic) and Antoin Ó Lachtnáin, conversation turned to last week’s news reports (BBC | OUT-LAW.com | The Register) that two people (let’s call them the leeches) were arrested in the UK and cautioned for using other people’s (let’s call them the routers’) wifi without permission. There are interesting questions of legal liability here, both for the leech and for the router, and they came up again in the context of Antoin’s presentation later that day about fon. That’s Antoin preaching the fon gospel in the photo on the left. Here, I want to discuss some of the legal issues, before turning to Antoin’s presentation.

Let’s look first at the liability of the leech. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m not the first, and certainly won’t be the last, to wax enthusiastic and lyrical on the triumph that was last Saturday’s BarCamp Dublin (where I spotted the iso-phone, left). Thanks a million to Joe, Elly, Paul and Eoghan; links seem an inadequate way to express my gratitude, but flowers might be inappropriate, so the adulation of the masses will have to do guys. By way of roundup, EuropeanIrish has a good collection of surveys and reviews (and I hope that as traffic grows over the next while, he’ll update the message as a good resource about the day).

After my own presentation, I could relax and enjoy the day: coffee, sandwiches, chat, and high quality content. Read the rest of this entry »

Fulfilling a promise rashly made ages ago, I spoke at BarCamp Dublin (blog | wiki) in the Digital Exchange on Crane Street in the Digital Hub (maps here and here) yesterday morning.

Once I had surmounted the usual technological glitches, this is me (click on the image for a bigger version, if you dare!) in full flow trying to cover the following issues:

Defamation, Privacy,
Obscenity, Hate Speech, Contempt,
Copyright, Threatening Speech,
Workplace speech issues,
Bloggers as Journalists,
and Soft Controls

For what they’re worth, my powerpoint slides are here, but were no more than a starting point for discussion (and anyway, TJ’s already done it much better here; see Sarah’s reaction here).

Update (26 April 2007): EFF have recently updated their legal guide for bloggers; whilst in Monday’s Media Guardian (hat tip: Media Law Prof Blog), Alice Gould writes about The blogosphere, the law and the printed word:

Anyone wanting to publish material posted on social networking sites, or other sites, needs to check the site’s terms and conditions to see who owns the material and whether it can legally be reproduced.

Update (4 May 2007): 12 Important U.S. Laws Every Blogger Needs to Know (hat tip: Freedom to Differ)

Update (17 May 2007): I’ve just found this podcast of the event in which TJ delivered the presentation mentioned above.

I have on this blog called for a thoroughgoing re-examination of the current balance between reward and innovation in copyright law by the enactment of a broad legislative right of fair use. Via What if . . . and Copyright on madisonian.net (Mike Madison) and What Ifs? Copyright Law III on 43(B)log (Rebecca Tushnet, personal site; Georgetown site), I learn that Abraham Drassinower, of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, in a paper entitled “What if copyright were really about authors?” at the What If, and Other Alternative Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw Stories IP Symposium argued:

If authorship were central, copyright would be less extensive. There would be no grounds for liability for copying for personal use, and the defense of fair dealing/fair use would not be a mere exception. It would be a user right.

Great stuff, this! (At the link above, Mike Madison explored similar territory). It bears repeating: in my view, fair use ought to be a right, and not merely an exception, exemption, license, or privilege.

Yesterday saw another milestone in the development of responsible journalism in Ireland. Joining the Press Council (blogged here) on the roster is Headline, which, according to its website:

… is Ireland’s national media monitoring programme, working to promote responsible and accurate coverage of mental health and suicide related issues within the Irish media.

Managed by Schizophrenia Ireland, Headline was set up by the Health Service Executive’s National Office for Suicide Prevention as part of Reach Out National Strategy for Action on Suicide Prevention (pdf). I learn from a piece by Carl O’Brien (who had launched the Headline website a fortnight ago with George Hook) in today’s Irish Times (sub req’d) that this important and welcome development is supported by the NUJ. Whether or not the media accept the prevasiveness of their influence, the fact that the initiative has the support of the NUJ is a welcome exercise of responsibility on their part.