The moral of the story in my previous post about cars being preceded by men carrying red flags is that fear of the new often leads to unnecessary regulation. For this reason, in the context of the internet, we need to be careful about over-reaction and over-regulation. In particular, we now have, in Ireland, a multiplicity of red-flags around the internet, and I wonder whether they are all really necessary.

In November 1999 – arising out of the public debates surrounding the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998 (also here) and the publication of the Report of the Working Group on the Illegal and Harmful Use of the Internet in July 1998 – the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland (ISPAI) established the Internet Child Pornography Hotline. It is now part of InHope (the International Association of Internet Hotlines) and of InS@fe, a europe-wide network of internet safety awareness bodies funded by the EU, which organises for example an annual Safer Internet Day (this year, it was 12 February last).

Soon thereafter, the Internet Advisory Board (IAB) was established by the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform in February 2000, with a general remit to supervise a system of self regulation by the Irish ISP industry and to pomote awareness of internet safety, particularly with regard to children. It has an independent chairperson and its members include representatives from the ISPAI, the Gardaí, children’s bodies, Government departments and public bodies. The IAB and the ISPAI agreed a Code of Practice and Ethics for the Irish internet industry, which the ISPAI published in January 2002 (pdf, analysed here by Tarlach McGonagle). More recently, it has published a series of Get with IT guides for parents to new media, filtering technologies, and social-networking sites. At last September’s launch of the first two (new media, filtering technologies), Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Brian Lenihan, trailed an announcement of an Office for Internet Safety (OIS). Then, at last month’s launch of the third and final guide (social-networking sites), he announced the appointment of Mr John Laffan as the Director of the OIS. Read the rest of this entry »

It is human nature to fear the new. And for many of us, the internet is still new. I have pointed out before that Lilian Edwards observes (in “The internet and security: do we need a man with a red flag walking in front of every computer?” (2007) 4 (1) SCRIPT-ed 1 (March 2007)), rather like those who feared cars so much that early models had to be preceded by a man walking ahead with a red flag to warn people of the approach of the new-fangled invention, there are now those who would red-flag everything about the internet. Sometimes, these fears are well-founded; on other occasions, they are exaggerated and misplaced. But the usual response – and in particular, the usual political response – is to do something to soothe those fears, whether or not well-founded. The cry goes up: “Something must be done”; and something is indeed done, whether it is necessary or not. This is particularly so when the cry that goes up is “Won’t someone please think of the children?“; hence, when the something is being done, it is often justified as being done in the best interests of children, again whether it is necessary or not. Unless we are careful, we may end up raising too many red-flags around the internet.

These musings are prompted by the news that, in response to the Byron Review Safer Children in a Digital World (website | blog reaction here and here | news reaction here and here | see, in particular, BBC news and reaction here, here, here, here, and here), the UK Government has said that it will establish a Council for Child Internet Safety and start to apply to computer games the age restrictions used to classify films. Read the rest of this entry »

The Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales and the Office of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman were established in 1990. There are plans afoot for their reform (Scotland | England & Wales) but the basic principle of independent oversight of disciplinary matters for the legal professions will not only remain intact but be enhanced. Now, it seems that Irish law is soon to adopt this principle too. Carol Coulter has an interesting article about recent developments in this regrad in today’s Irish Times (sub req’d); some extracts:

Ombudsman will oversee complaints against lawyers

A Legal Services Ombudsman who will be appointed by the Government for up to six years will have oversight of the disciplining of solicitors and barristers, and of their recruitment and training. The ombudsman will be appointed under the Legal Services Ombudsman Bill, expected to be published next week.

The Bill was originally part of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 [2006 press release], but was taken out of this Bill for further development in the wake of controversy concerning solicitors Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne. Under it, members of the public will be able to appeal to the ombudsman if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of complaints to the disciplinary bodies of the Law Society or Bar Council.

The Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) will be a ministerial appointment of a person with “appropriate experience, qualifications, training or expertise”. The nature of such experience or qualifications is not specified in the Bill. However, members of the Oireachtas, European Parliament, local authorities, Law Society or Bar Council, or solicitors or barristers, will not be eligible for appointment. …

This is an entirely welcome development. Read the rest of this entry »

The Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament (CND) is 50 this year, and its famous symbol is 50 today (hat tip: Opinio Juris; BBC):

The images (from left to right) are the first ceramic CND badge, an early tin badge, and the current badge.

The symbol was

designed in 1958 by Gerald Holtom, a professional artist and graduate of the Royal College of Arts. He presented his early designs to the Peace News office in North London and, significantly, to the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War, one of the groups that helped to set up CND. The symbol was first seen in public during the 1958 Aldermaston march and from that moment onwards became identified with CND and its objective of nuclear disarmament.

Ironically the symbol itself is a mix of the military semaphore signals N – representing nuclear – and D – representing disarmament (semaphore alphabet). However, Holtom, a conscientious objector during the Second World War, subverted this use of semaphores by placing the D over the N, the “upside down logoâ€? signifying his anti-military principles.

This can be clearly seen in the following graphics:

The CND peace symbol will doubtless understand if I say that I am sorry that it is just as relevant today on its golden anniversary as it was in when it was first adopted in 1958!

I have blogged already (here and here) about the Statute Law Revision Act, 2007. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the Oireachtas should feel very flattered indeed.

Earlier this year, the Law Commissions of England and Wales and of Scotland published their 18th report in a series of proposed statute law repeals (pdf) (hat tip: Slaw). The Statute Law (Repeals) Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on Wednesday 27 February 2008 by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. On the day that NPR reports that State Representative Byron Rushing (Dem) is mounting an effort to repeal out-of-date laws in Massachusetts comes news that the UK’s Bill received its second reading today in the House of Lords. Read the rest of this entry »

For too long, Irish universities have hoped that the many developments in graduate funding to develop a Fourth Level in the Irish university sector in recent years would trickle down to offset the ongoing cuts in third level undergraduate funding. It hasn’t happened. Moreover, it was never going to happen. In effect, funds were taken from the broad-based undergraduate sector, and eventually returned in part to highly targeted elements of the post-graduate sector. It is a short-sighted policy: if there is no support for the undergraduate sector, whence will the graduates come for the post-graduate sector? It follows, therefore, that a successful, generously funded, fourth level needs to be constructed upon an equally successful, and equally generously funded, third level sector. Read the rest of this entry »

Blawg Review describes itself as the blog carnival for everyone interested in law:

A peer-reviewed blog carnival, the host of each Blawg Review decides which of the submissions and recommended posts are suitable for inclusion in the presentation. And the host is encouraged to source another dozen or so interesting posts to fit with any special theme of that issue of Blawg Review.

In celebration of St Patrick’s Day, this week’s carnival (as opposed to this one), Blawg Review #151, is ably hosted by Daithí Mac Síthigh on Lex Ferenda. He begins:

Raise a glass (or the Legal Antiquarian’s Lawyer Stein) to the Irish! Happy St. Patrick’s Day from Dublin and from the legal blogosphere and welcome to this week’s Blawg Review, back at Lex Ferenda after a not-too-unsuccessful tryout for the team in Blawg Review #128. Of course it’s not just the week or month of that most famous of Welshmen, Patrick; the Ides of March are commemorated by What About Clients? and David Giacalone at ethical, esq. St. Patrick’s Day is a public holiday in Ireland and in Northern Ireland; Life at Work (in New Zealand) weighs in with some amusing observations on holidays from work.

The Manhunt II saga is probably finally over in the UK (hat tip: Daithí­ off-blog), but perhaps there is one further stage left in Ireland.

As readers of this blog will know, last June the Irish Film Censor’s Office (IFCO), exercised its power to ban Rockstar Games’ Manhunt II, following the lead of many other countries’ authorities, including the UK’s BBFC (see here and here) earlier the same month. When an edited version was submitted, the BBFC reaffirmed their decision in October, but the the BBFC’s Video Appeals Committee (VAC) allowed Rockstar’s appeal in December. In turn, the BBFC appealed this decision to the High Court, which allowed the case to go ahead and then held in January 2008 that the VAC had misinterpreted the relevant legislation and had to consider the issue again (see R (on the application of the British Board of Film Classification) v Video Appeals Committee QBD (Admin) (Mr Justice Mitting) (24 January 2008)). And so the matter returned to the VAC, which this week reaffirmed its earlier decision to allow the game to be released. Read the rest of this entry »