The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …”. Does that and similar declarations of press freedom extend to the blogosphere? The question is made more difficult in the context of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a general protection of freedom of expression which contains no direct reference to the media at all, though the European Court of Human Rights has long extolled the “watchdog” role of the press as of especial value in Article 10 jurisprudence. The question is made more difficult still in the context of the Treaties establishing the European Union, where speech issues arise not as elements of a straightforward freedom of expression guarantee but in the context of the fundamental economic rights upon which the EU is founded, but even there the European Court of Justice has long acknowledged the importance of freedom of expression especially as regards the media. Over on contentandcarrier, Hans Peter Lehofer has spotted some interesting asides in recent judgments of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, signalling how those courts may be about to build on these developments and expand press freedom to non-traditional media, such as the blogosphere.…
Author: Eoin
Dr Eoin O'Dell is a Fellow and Associate Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin.
Cowengate: no use crying over spilt milk
- Silvio Berlusconi and Mara Carfagna, though not by Filippo Panseca
Yesterday’s Times Online has a short piece which begins [with added links]
A scarf is the only thing protecting the modesty of Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, in a painting of him and his Minister for Equal Opportunities, Mara Carfagna, 32, a former topless model, as angels. The work by Filippo Panseca is in a show at Savona on the Italian Riviera. Mr Panseca, 69, said that he wanted to pay tribute to the Prime Minister, 72, in the exhibition, which also includes a painting in similar style of Mr Berlusconi’s wife Veronica Lario.
The same story is also covered in The Independent, The Telegraph, and The Daily Mail. The inevitable comparisons with Cowengate were drawn by the Evening Herald, which adds that Panseca said that if
Berlusconi bought the paintings he would donate the money to the earthquake victims of Abruzzo. Mr Berlusconi has yet to comment. But he seems unlikely to buy the pictures: last year, he censored a bare nipple in a copy of a renaissance painting hung in the government press room.
More seriously, though, it seems that 144 people complained to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission about RTÉ’s coverage, 9 about the original report, and 135 about the apology; and Suzy has posted a copy of RTÉs response to the BCC regarding those complaints.…
Google, Amazon, Citron
If you liked my posts about the gatekeeper responsibilities of search engines, then you’ll have loved last week’s furore over Amazon’s decision to disable search and sales ranking for “adult” material. I followed the controversy via John Naughton’s Memex 1.1 blog, here, here and here (pointing to his column in last weekend’s Observer). It has long been a source of worry that private actors such as Google and Amazon should retain so much personal data as to raise significant privacy concerns. More recently, the range of worry has broadened, with the realisation that such companies can not only manipulate their databases to target advertising at their users, but they can also manipulate them to prevent the users having access to data. Lawyers notoriously understand very little about internet reserach, and so have great difficulty in addressing the kinds of legal and regulatory issues that such manipulation reveal. I have recently blogged about articles by Oren Bracha and Frank Pasquale and by Emily B Laidlaw, arguing that actors such as Amazon and Google should come under common law duties analagous to those that govern public utilities.
More generally, over on Concurring Opinions, a rolling symposium, starting here, is considering Danielle Citron‘s seminal article “Cyber Civil Rights” 89 Boston University Law Review 61 (2009).…
Tweets on Twitter
Another hecklers’ veto; another failure of freedom of expression on campus
Via 9th Level Ireland, I am alerted to the following story [with added links]:
Euthanasia lecture cancelled
A controversial public lecture on euthanasia has been cancelled minutes after it began when a group of over 20 protestors disrupted it. The guest speaker Prof Len Doyal, an open proponent of both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia, had to be escorted from the lecture theatre at Cork University Hospital by security staff. The lecture entitled ‘Why Euthanasia should be legalised‘, formed part of the annual spring series organized by CUH’s Ethics Forum and started at 5pm. As the 350 attendees were being welcomed, a group of over 20 people stood up and began shouting. Witnesses say some began saying the rosary and one man accused Prof Doyal of being a murderer. A decision was taken soon afterwards to cancel the lecture on public safety grounds but it took some time to get the message through to the audience because of the continuing strong vocal opposition by protestors. …
This is terrible news. As I have argued here before, to ensure that hecklers do not have a veto, those who organise such controversial events must ensure that the controversial speakers actually have the opportunity to speak.…
Tory Island and Unjust Enrichment
Tory Island is a small island of striking natural beauty off the northwest coast of Co Donegal. So, film-maker Neville Presho must have thought himself a lucky man to have a holiday home there. Until, one day, he returned to the island, and found that the house was gone, replaced by car park for an adjacent hotel (Irish Emigrant | Irish Independent | Irish Times | Kerryman | RTE | Soft Irish Rain). In an ongoing High Court action [an important preliminary stage is here], Mr Presho’s claim against the hotel in respect of the demolition of the house failed, but Mr Justice Murphy suggested that there may be a restitution claim for the hotel’s use of the site as a car park. Tim Healy’s story in yesterday’s Irish Independent explains the restitution claim:
…Hotelier in car park row faces order over damages
Holiday home ‘vanished’ while owner was absent
A Tory Island hotelier who built a car park on the remains of a 150-year-old holiday home which burnt down may have to pay damages to its former owner. A High Court judge who is presiding over a legal row over a holiday home which allegedly “disappeared” and became a car park for an adjoining hotel yesterday said the case may be dealt with on the basis of unjust enrichment by the hotel.
Libraries
On Slaw, Michael Lines lauds a presentation by Paul Holdengraber, Director of the Public Education Program at the New York Public Library:
Yesterday’s Keynote was probably one of the best talks on any topic I have ever heard. Inspiring, elevating, and hilarious, Paul Holdengraber delivered a wonderful message about reading, conversation, and libraries that has to be seen to be appreciated. Have a look at it here …
It’s wonderful, a rousing and triumphant vindication of libraries everywhere (even though the server seems to be picky about whether it will let you view it). Unfortunately, the powers that be don’t seem to see libraries in these terms. Rachel Cooke – journalist with the Observer and Guardian – has been blogging and writing about luddite UK policy relating to libraries:
If those of us who love books, and libraries, and believe they are a vital, beautiful and cherishable part of our cultural and social heritage, take our eye off the ball now, we will regret it. We must make a fuss, and we must name and shame those who are set on destruction.
Her colleague John Cooke is similarly concerned. There do not seem to be similar threats here, but let’s see what next Tuesday’s budget brings.…
Cowengate and seditious libel
I wonder whether anyone has suggested that Conor Casby’s caricatures of Cowen constitute a seditious libel? It’s not that fanciful a question: the common law crime still exists, and has been used against milder criticism. But the mere fact that the question can be asked in this context demonstrates just how ridiculous the crime actually is. It’s on the way out in Australia. Now, thankfully, its days may now finally be numbered, both in Ireland and in the UK too!
As for Ireland, the Minister for Justice suggested this week that we could see the enactment of the Defamation Bill, 2006 before the summer. Since it was introduced in July 2006, the Bill has suffered more delays than Ryanair, to say nothing of the long journey to reach that point which began with the work of the Law Reform Commission in 1991 (Consultation Paper and Report on the Civil Law of Defamation; Consultation Paper and Report on the Crime of Libel). The tortuous passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas has taken so long that I won’t hold my breath, but the fact that it is likely to recommence its less-than-steady progress is welcome news nonetheless. One of the many great benefits of this enactment will be the abolition of the common law crime of seditious libel.…