Comments on: Cowengate: no use crying over spilt milk

By: Eoin

Eoin — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:17:09 +0000

As for cartoons and Article 10, see also Cumpana and Mazare v Romania 33348/96, (2005) 41 EHRR 14, [2004] ECHR 692 (17 December 2004) and Leroy v France 36109/03 (2 October 2008).

By: cearta.ie » Globalisation alla Berlusconi: libel suits in many jurisdictions

cearta.ie » Globalisation alla Berlusconi: libel suits in many jurisdictions — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:58:10 +0000

[...] the press in Italy is in a sorry state, and Berlusconi’s three cases are simply the latest in a long line of such law suits instigated by him (not all have gone his way: last year, The Economist [...]

By: Greenwich Real Estate

Greenwich Real Estate — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:31:09 +0000

In Austria we once had a court case involving a photo montage where the head of our then Chancellor (prime minister) was put on a naked body, with the caption “The Emperor’S new clothes”; in that case, the Austrian Supreme Judicial Court awarded damages (less than 1500 Euro) to the prime minister; to my knowledge, the case was not tested at the ECHR.

By: cearta.ie » Cowengate and Freedom of Expression

cearta.ie » Cowengate and Freedom of Expression — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:47 +0000

[...] follow-on: a question, and more pictures at the exhibitions, Cowengate and seditious libel, and Cowengate: no use crying over spilt milk. There will be no further amendments here – the text of this post is now [...]

By: Eoin

Eoin — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:24:35 +0000

Thanks, Hans Peter, for the comment. I’m delighted you stopped by, and I’m thrilled that the comments are being used for a discussion of an interpretation of a case. As can probably predict, however, I’m not yet convinced that VBK needs the kind of careful handling you suggest. For example, it seems to me that every ECHR judgment seems special on its facts, and many are often quite closely decided; however, when they come to be relied upon in later cases, they are often cited and followed for the issue of principle they decide, rather than being confined by their facts. As a consequence, I think that it is not illegitimate to cast such cases at a high degree of generality.

More than that, I’m not sure that the three points you make dilute the impact of the case very much anyway. The first one reinforces the political nature of the collage, which seem to me to support rather than to undercut my argument about the collage in VBK and the Cowen caricatures constituting protected political speech. The second one downplays the prominence of Meischberger in the painting, and the third observes that he is no longer visible due to the subsequent defacing of the painting. But I don’t think either of these facts is particularly strong. Meischberger may not have been the most prominent politician in the collage, but he was pretty outrageously portrayed; it was to this portrayal that he objected (notwithstanding that it was minor relative to the others, or subsequently vandalised); and it was this portrayal that was in issue in the case.

In any event, I’m glad we both agree that agree that the caricature at the heart of “Cowengate” probably would be considered protected political speech by the ECHR. And I look forward to any other comments you might make about this post or any others you might drop in on from time to time!