Freedom of Expression – Page 16

Is Lady Chatterley’s Lover obscene?

21 July, 20092 November, 2017

| Censorship, criminal libel, Freedom of Expression, Law, Obscenity

No, at least so far as the law is concerned. But after its initial publication in 1928, it was not until the 1960s that litigation in the US and the UK allowed it to become generally available. An op-ed by Fred Kaplan in the today’s New York Times, entitled The Day Obscenity Became Art, (with added links) tells us that

today is the 50th anniversary of the court ruling that overturned America’s obscenity laws, setting off an explosion of free speech — … The historic case began on May 15, 1959, when Barney Rosset, the publisher of Grove Press, sued the Post Office for confiscating copies of the uncensored version of D. H. Lawrence’s 1928 novel “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” which had long been banned for its graphic sex scenes.

… Mr. Rosset hired a lawyer named Charles Rembar, … [who] presented “Lady Chatterley” as a novel of ideas that inveighed against sex without love, the mechanization of industrial life and morbid hypocrisy. … On July 21, 1959, Judge Bryan ruled in favor of Grove Press and ordered the Post Office to lift all restrictions on sending copies of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” through the mail.

…

Another twist in the tale of the Defamation Bill

17 July, 200925 July, 2013

| 13 Comments

| Blasphemy, criminal libel, Defamation, Defamation Bill 2006, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights, judges

The saga of the Defamation Bill, 2006 is not over yet. Article 26 of Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Irish Constitution) allows the President, after consultation with Council of State, to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a determination of its constitutionality. President McAleese has chosen to convene the Council of State to advise her on the qustion of whether to refer not only the (controversial) Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill, 2009 (an unsurprising move) but also the (equally controversial) blasphemy elements of the Defamation Bill, 2006 (which has come as a great surprise). (See Belfast Telegraph | BreakingNews.ie | Bock the Robber | ICCL | Irish Emigrant | Irish Independent | RTÉ news | Irish Times | PA | Slugger O’Toole. Update (18 July 2009): see also Irish Examiner | Irish Times here and here | Irish Independent | MediaWatchWatch).

There have been 15 such references to date. If the Court holds that a Bill is unconstitutional, the President must decline to sign it; whilst if the Court decides a Bill is constitutional, the President must sign it into law, and the resulting Act is immune from constitutional challenge in the future.…

Perspectives on Academic Freedom

26 June, 200927 June, 2009

| 5 Comments

| Academic Freedom, Freedom of Expression, Universities

One of my favourite blogs is Erin O’Connor’s Critical Mass, a blog dedicated to commentary on the state of academe in general and American higher education in particular. She is invariably interesting and unfailingly provocative, if not always right; and her discussions of academic freedom in all its guises have helped to clarify what I think about such matters. Last week, she blogged about a new report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA, where she is a Research Fellow) on Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas. How Trustees Can Advance Intellectual Diversity on Campus (pdf); its abstract:

This report features ten best practices, gleaned from colleges and universities across the country, for promoting the free exchange of ideas in and out of the classroom. Since intellectual diversity is at the core of any true university education, the report commends institutions that have taken action, urges them to keep at it, and exhorts other boards to play their proper leadership role–working, of course, with administrators, faculty, alumni, and donors–in guaranteeing and enriching the intellectual environment on campus.

The ten principles discussed in detail in the report are

Survey the campus climate.
Incorporate intellectual diversity into institutional statements and policies.

…

European Charter on Freedom of the Press

10 June, 20092 August, 2009

| 1 Comment

| Digital Rights, EU media policy, Freedom of Expression, Journalists' sources, Media and Communications

: Jörges hands over the Charter to Reding (Photo: EUobserver)

On 25 May 25 2009, 48 editors-in-chief and leading journalists from 19 countries adopted and signed the European Charter on Freedom of the Press in Hamburg. In ten articles, the Charter formulates principles for the freedom of the press from government interference. Yesterday, the Charter was presented to the EU Commissioner for the Information Society and Media (hat tip: European Media Blog; see EU press relase).

From the EUobserver:

European press freedom charter launched

In an effort to counter increasing worries about infringement of press freedom by governments in Europe, both within the EU and beyond, the editor-in-chief of Germany’s weekly Stern magazine [Hans-Ulrich Jörges], together with EU media commissioner Viviane Reding on Tuesday (9 June) celebrated the launch of the European Charter on Freedom of the Press … In March, the Open Society Institute‘s media programme – a pressure group focussing on media freedom in emerging democracies – criticised the European Commission in a report that argued that broadcasting across Europe, particularly in the east but also in Italy, is undergoing a “counter-reformation” – a backsliding towards overt political control after the post-Cold War period, when leaders relaxed their grip on TV and radio.

…

Cowengate caricatures “didn’t bother” Cowen: why the fuss?

6 June, 200920 January, 2013

| No Comments

| Blogging, Censorship, Freedom of Expression, Irish Society, Sedition

On the top right hand corner of a cover of Hot Press (pictured left) runs a quote from the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Brian Cowen:

Those paintings didn’t bother me

It is a teaser for a full interview with Jason O’Toole in which Cowen talks about the current economic crisis and his party’s electoral prospects. This is what he said about those paintings:

Do you read any of the political blogs written about you and your government?
No, I don’t. I’ve been too busy trying to do my job.

Do you think the recent controversy over the painting was blown out of proportion?
I made no comment about it at the time. As far as I was concerned, it was obviously a stunt. I know some people thought it wasn’t in great taste, but I just stayed out of it. I have a thick enough political skin at this stage – formed over the 25 years I’ve been in this business – not to be bothered by something like that.

So, just what was all the fuss about?…

Why protect free speech?

11 May, 200919 May, 2009

| 6 Comments

| Censorship, Freedom of Expression

Index on Censorship has published a short edited extract from Ideas That Matter: Key Concepts for the 21st Century (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2009) by AC Grayling, Professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London, in which he provides a compelling and pithy case in favour of free speech and against censorship:

It’s a surprise to learn how universal censorship is

While even the most tyrannical regime will pay lip service to free speech, it is a right that is constantly denied.

There are two bedrock civil liberties without which the very idea of civil liberty is empty. They are freedom of speech and due process of law. … The fundamental justifications for freedom of expression are as follows. First, it is an intrinsic right of every individual not to be forced to think, speak and believe at the dictate of others, but to do these things of their own free accord. Secondly, it is of the essence to the possession and protection of other liberties that individuals have this right. Thirdly, in the absence of the first two considerations, the full development of the human individual is vastly more difficult and in most cases not even possible, Fourthly, freedom of expression is essential to the interchange of ideas and views, and discussion of them, without which society cannot be healthy or mature.

…

Journalists’ source privilege: one privilege or two?

5 May, 200912 May, 2009

| 2 Comments

| Freedom of Expression, Irish cases, journalism, Journalists' sources, Supreme Court of Canada

Journalists’ source privilege is in the air. In the US, the House of Representatives has recently passed a (not particularly readable) Bill recognising a journalists’ source privilege (the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009), and it has been introduced into the Senate. In the UK, a prosecution of a local newspaper journalist and the police source who “leaked” stories to her was recently dismissed (indeed, a similar case against a member of parliament will also not proceed, though another is still pending).

On a judicial level, the Trial Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCCL) (pdf) (noted on the CPJ blog), relying on the earlier decision of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Prosecutor v Bradjanin and Talic (11 December 2002), held that a Liberian journalist did not have to divulge the names of those who facilitated his access to a war zone. In Sanoma Uitgevers BV v the Netherlands Application no 38224/03 (31 March 2009) (noted in my previous post), building on its seminal and hugely influential decision in Goodwin v UK Application no 17488/90, [1996] ECHR 16 (27 March 1996), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) explored the limits of such a privilege.…

The limits of the ECHR’s protection of journalists’ sources

4 May, 20096 August, 2009

| 3 Comments

| ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Journalists' sources

In my previous post, I outlined some of the international instruments which provide for the protection of journalists’ sources. The leading court decision on the issue is the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the seminal and hugely influential Goodwin v UK Application no 17488/90, [1996] ECHR 16 (27 March 1996). And in Sanoma Uitgevers BV v the Netherlands Application no 38224/03 (31 March 2009), the Court reaffirmed Goodwin but set out its limits.

Goodwin turned on the interpretation of Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1981, which provides:

No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.

In X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1 (HL), the House of Lords held that it was “in the interests of justice” to order a trainee journalist to disclose the identity of a source. However, in Goodwin the ECHR held that this infringed the journalists’ right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.…

cearta.ie

Category: Freedom of Expression

Is Lady Chatterley’s Lover obscene?

Another twist in the tale of the Defamation Bill

Perspectives on Academic Freedom

European Charter on Freedom of the Press

European press freedom charter launched

Cowengate caricatures “didn’t bother” Cowen: why the fuss?

Why protect free speech?

It’s a surprise to learn how universal censorship is

Journalists’ source privilege: one privilege or two?

The limits of the ECHR’s protection of journalists’ sources