As a counterpoint to the THE’s piece on The seven deadly sins of the academy, about which I wrote here, Mary Beard has exasperatedly pointed out that the entry about lust was – as the author himself has also had to explain – satirical:

Sex with students? Is Terence Kealey as misunderstood as Juvenal?

… I hadn’t realised that there was a storm about Terence Kealey’s piece on Lust … So I took a look at it. … It was instantly clear to me that this was SATIRE. … Taking several more, careful looks at the Kealey piece, I was left in no doubt that he was aiming his darts at the ways crude sexual exploitation of female students gets justified, by satircally mimicking the locker room style in which it is discussed. Come on everyone, NO VICE-CHANCELLOR (not even of Buckingham) calls women students a “perk” unless satirically (and aiming a dart at precisely those assumptions). Honest.

It was however a dreadful experience looking not only at the press reports of all this but also the comments of the THE website (some of which were presumably written by academics, who showed no ability to read or understand satire AT ALL . . . maybe they were all computer scientist, but I rather doubt it). To be fair, a few did make the plea for humour and satire. But not many. …

The trouble with satire, as poor Kealey has found, is that the literal minded are always liable not to get it. And the satirist is inadvertently taken to support the very views s/he is attacking.

Perhaps, for the literal-minded, we should replace “lust” in the list with “academic insularity”, and then confine the literal-minded to their insulæ.

I’ve been putting some slides together for a talk I’m doing tonight at Ignite Dublin #1, and my colleague Dr Neville Cox provided me with the Sunday Independent cartoon which was the subject of the only attempt to prosecute mount a prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland since the adoption of the Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) in 1937. The case is Corway v Independent Newspapers [1999] 4 IR 485; [2000] 1 ILRM 426; [1999] IESC 5 (30 July 1999). In the aftermath of the 1995 referendum which removed the constitutional ban on divorce, the Sunday Independent published an article by Dr Conor Cruise-O’Brien, on the implications of that referendum. The article was accompanied by this cartoon:

During the course of the campaign, those opposed to the amendment ran a powerful advertising campaign built around the slogan “Hello Divorce … Bye Bye Daddy …” (pdf; see the poster at the start of this post), and the cartoon’s caption was clearly a play upon that slogan. In Corway, the applicant wished to commence a prosecution for blasphemous libel against the cartoon and caption, on the grounds that they were calculated to insult the feelings and religious convictions of catholic readers by treating the sacrament of the Eucharist and its administration as objects of scorn and derision. However, under section 8 (also here) of the Defamation Act, 1961, the consent of a High Court judge was necessary to commence the prosecution, but both the High Court and the Supreme Court refused such leave. In the Supreme Court, Barrington J held that the common law crime of blasphemous libel was so uncertain that the constitutional mandate that blasphemy is offence punishable by law could not be given content, and therefore in effect declined to give leave to prosecute because there was no offence which could be prosecuted. Now, however, courtesy of Part 5 of the Defamation Act, 2009, there is indeed a clear offence of blasphemy:

36.—(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

So, for me, the interesting question is, now that there is once again an offence which could be prosecuted, whether the Corway cartoon would fall foul of section 36 of the 2009 Act? Mr Corway was plainly of the view that the cartoon is grossly abusive or insulting to matters held sacred by the Roman Catholic religion; indeed, he was outraged by it; but there is no evidence that this outrage was shared by a substantial number of his co-religionists. Let us nevertheless assume that outrage. The question would then be whether a reasonable person would think that the cartoon possessed some genuine literary, artistic, political value. Now, I think that it’s making a very important political point, but I may not be “reasonable” in the sense in which section 36(3) uses that phrase – so, what do you think? And, if context matters, even if the original publication does not benefit from the section 36(3) exception, would a reasonable person see the discussion here as political or academic? Let me know in the comments. Thanks.

In the UK, the Ministry for Justice (logo, left) has just begun a consultation process seeking views on the “multiple publication rule” at common law under which each publication of defamatory material can form the basis of a new defamation claim, and in particular on the effects of this rule in relation to online archives. If this rule is reformed, then a major plank of the libel tourism phenomenon, by which London has become the libel capital of the Western world and home to libel actions that have little to do with its jurisdiction, will quite properly have been removed (see BBC | ComputerWorld | Greenslade | Guardian | Index on Censorship Free Speech blog | Information Overlord | OUT.law | Slaw | TechWatch | Times Online).

The multiple publication rule was established in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185 (already discussed on this blog), reaffirmed in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2002] QB 783, [2001] EWCA Civ 1805 (05 December 2001), and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos 1 and 2) v the United Kingdom Applications 3002/03 and 23676/03, [2009] ECHR 451 (10 March 2009). However, it seems to have been excised from Irish law by section 11 of the new Defamation Act, 2009, which provides

Multiple publication
11.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person has one cause of action only in respect of a multiple publication.

(2) A court may grant leave to a person to bring more than one defamation action in respect of a multiple publication where it considers that the interests of justice so require.

(3) In this section “multiple publication” means publication by a person of the same defamatory statement to 2 or more persons (other than the person in respect of whom the statement is made) whether contemporaneously or not.

This is not an easy section to parse; but it seems to me that two subsequent clicks on the same internet archive article constitute “the same defamatory statement” to two persons, but not contemporaneously; and if this is right, then section 11 reverses the common law position. The UK consultation, in effect, then, is whether UK law should come into line with Irish law. The Ministry places this consultation in the context of a wider reform of defamation law currently underway, which includes the decriminalisation of seditious libel currently before Parliament, and a consultation earlier this year on controlling costs in defamation proceedings (update: more here). Moreover, it is plainly a response to the ECHR decision in the Times Newspapers, which, whilst upholding the multiple publication rule, nevertheless emphasised that

48. … while an aggrieved applicant must be afforded a real opportunity to vindicate his right to reputation, libel proceedings brought against a newspaper after a significant lapse of time may well, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, give rise to a disproportionate interference with press freedom under Article 10.

In other words, although the multiple publication rule still survives in the UK, it is not necessarily entirely compatible with free speech norms. From the webpage on the multiple publication consultation:

Defamation on the internet: Ministry of Justice seeks your views

A debate on aspects of defamation law, and how it works in the internet age, was launched today by the Ministry of Justice. Part of the law on defamation originates from the 1840s, long before the internet arrived and changed the way that opinions and comment are often communicated. Today’s consultation seeks views on specific issues that could interest anybody who posts or publishes on the internet, particularly those who maintain online archives. …

Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, said:

… Freedom to hold and express opinions is a right that is vital to democracy, as is respect for the rights and freedoms of others. How these principles are balanced in the fast-changing internet age is a fascinating debate.

To encourage responses, there is a short list of 8 questions, to which my off-the-top-of-my-head answers are as follows:

1. The multiple publication rule in the UK should be abolished and replaced by a single publication rule, just as the new Irish Act has done. Read the rest of this entry »

From the Guardian (last week, apologies for coming late to this):

Fighting for free speech

Is offence the new censorship? The launch of the Free Word Centre seeks to reopen the debate about freedom of expression

Ursula Owen

It’s entirely appropriate that the new Free Word Centre, which is launched tonight, is based in Farringdon Road. The area has associations with the written word that go back to the Middle Ages, and a long tradition of publishing, printing and radicalism. William Morris published the famous “Free Speech in the Streets” in his political broadsheet The Commonweal from 13 Farringdon Road. …

Free Word’s mission is to promote the power of the written and spoken word, and to protect creativity and free expression generally. What makes it different from the many literature houses all over Europe is that its core principle is free expression and literacy – which immediately makes its outlook international and political (not always seen as a palatable word in the arts). The ideas behind it were thrashed out by the eight founder members over five years. They are now resident in the building. Free Word is a venue, an office space, a thinking space, where media meets literature. In its theatre and meeting rooms you will hear familiar and unknown voices, the expected and the unexpected, debate and controversy. …

As our new first year students arrive this week, there is a strong orientation programme for them, to ease them into Trinity life. Trinity News, one of the student newspapers, writes in praise of Trinity’s old-fashioned freshers’ week; another college’s publication last week looked at Freshers’ First Steps; and GoToCollege has some useful tips for those Starting College. Flying Saucer; a current UK student has some excellent advice (entertainingly quirky, often practical, but occasionally misleading: have loud parties, make friends, don’t buy books); a recent US graduate does something similar in a very American fashion (prioritize, study, find meaning); the Guardian warns that the first week is more likely to challenge your wallet than your brain; Registrarism emphasises that newspaper copy doesn’t always recognise that there is much more to freshers’ week than commerce and alcohol; but by far the most useful pieces of college advice is a series of columns in the New York Times called College Advice, From People Who Have Been There Awhile. Some favourites:

• Gerald Graff: Recognize that knowing a lot of stuff won’t do you much good unless you can do something with it by turning it into an argument.
• Garry Wills: read, read, read; similarly Harold Bloom: read authors who are difficult and demand rereading, but that doubles their value.
• Carol Berkin: don’t alienate your lecturers; and laugh at all (or at least most) of their jokes.

Finally, Mike Madison has tips for newbies; his most important advice is the title to this post (some links added):

In the words of the great Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Don’t Panic. …

And if the panic takes hold (or not) try the song below, “Panic Switch” (lyrics here) by Silversun Pickups (I recommend going to 11). …

Panic Switch – Silversun Pickups

Other classic examples of the ‘don’t panic’ advice: Coldplay (YouTube) and Dad’s Army (YouTube). Don’t panic, and enjoy.

From Kelly Anders on the Faculty Lounge:

Cartoons in the Academy

Cruise the halls of a typical grouping of faculty offices in any law school, and several cartoons are sure to adorn the walls and doors. Some are funny in a mild-mannered way, while others can be quite political. Are cartoon postings yet another perk of being tenured, or do untenured faculty and staff feel just as comfortable displaying these images? Do they make us more “human” to students, or does their presence provide a small sense of comfort that academic seriousness has not made us lose our youthful edge? Personally, I do not have any funnies or political commentary taped on my door, but I do have a book of museum cartoons from The New Yorker in my office. Some of my colleagues occasionally use a cartoon in their classes. If you have cartoons nearby, what are they depicting and how are they used? Does anyone mention them?

Well, I have had cartoons on my notice board for as long as I have been teaching, and I post ones I like on this site. More to the point, I use them on my courses’ WebCT/Blackboard sites and in class, to provide an accessible way in to heavy material or as an alternative to my (dry and sadly misunderstood) humour.

Using the Press Ombudsman and Press Council mechanisms will allow media complaints to be settled without lawyers, as expensive legal processes will be invoked much less frequently following the enactment of the Defamation Act, 2009 according to the Press Ombudsman, Prof John Horgan. On the one hand, he would say that wouldn’t he? On the other, I hope that he’s right; it’s much too early to tell, of course, but that is the intention behind the establishment and recognition of his office.

However, not only is bringing a complaint to his office cheaper and quicker, it’s probably also safer than going to court. According to the Irish Times breaking news service, a judge was accidentally shot in court; but the facts were rather more prosaic, and the later print version of the article explained that pellets from a toy gun struck the judge at a family law hearing.

The current edition of Times Higher Education (I can’t get used to this odd title, I keep wanting to add “Supplement“; but it was dropped some time ago, so I must resist the temptation) has articles on the temptations that academics and students find hard to resist.

First, the academics:

The seven deadly sins of the academy

… The inward-looking, incestuous atmosphere of university life has long made it a breeding ground for some of the canonical deadly sins. … It would not be hard to draw up a list of traditional academic deadly sins on the basis of such examples. But how many have survived in today’s academy …? Which have disappeared? And, assuming goodwill hasn’t broken out on all sides, what have they been replaced by?

Modernisation and a huge expansion of the sector have brought fresh air into even the stuffiest quadrangles. So, if people in general are subject to avarice, envy, gluttony, pride, lust, sloth and wrath, what are the vices particularly prominent on campuses and in common rooms now? …

The answer, it seems, is:

• Sartorial Inelegance (this matter is always in the eye of the beholder, especially if my tie is too loud);
• Procrastination (this post is evidence that I occasionally succumb, though elsewhere in the THE there is an article advising academics to blog, so really, I’m working, honestly, I am …);
• Snobbery (this will, no doubt, be presumed against me, based on where I work, so I’ll just move swiftly on, waving at the riff-raff [add insulting link to taste here] as I go);
• Lust (no comment; does the Fifth Amendment apply in cyber-space?);
• Arrogance (oops, see my Kingsfield post);
• Complacency (I’ve never seen any need to worry – the recession isn’t going to have an impact on the public service, right?);
• Pedantry (oops, see my Fulsome Pedantry post).

By way of balance, there is also an article about students’ sins (one of which, at least, has detained me here in the past):

Mind your manners, not the phone, please

Students’ use of mobiles tops the list of uncivil teaching disruptions … They turn up late without doing the required reading and then they sit chatting to their friends, texting or looking bored. Just when you thought you finally had everyone’s full attention, a mobile phone rings, and students start packing up their things 15 minutes before the end of the session. If this sounds familiar, it is because these are among the most common examples of student “incivility” in university lecture and seminar rooms, according to a new study. …

Enough said.