Freedom of Expression – Page 8

Kenny and Obama Last week, on 17 March, as the world celebrated Ireland’s national day in honour of St Patrick, the Taoiseach (the Irish Prime Minister) made the annual presentation of a bowl of shamrock to the President of the United States (pictured left). I seem to remember being taught in school that the reason the shamrock is one of Ireland’s unofficial national symbols is because St Patrick explained the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity by reference to the three leaves of the shamrock. I now work in a College named for the same Holy and Undivided Trinity. So, it might come as little surprise that I have recently been thinking about a trinity, though a rather more secular one. What I have in mind is the constitutional trinity on which many modern states are founded: liberal democracy and the rule of law.

All three elements of this trinity are multi-faceted, contestable, and elusive. Moreover, it is possible to conceive of a state which commits to one of the elements of this constitutional trinity, or even two, but – like a three-legged stool – they have become mutually reinforcing in many modern states, so much so that they often fade into one another both in popular conception and in more considered analysis.…

Great news: criminal libel case in France against Joe Weiler is dismissed

3 March, 2011

| No Comments

| Academic Freedom, criminal libel, Freedom of Expression, General

Journal Editor Wins Libel Case Over Negative Book Review

March 3, 2011, 1:49 pm

A journal editor who was sued in France for criminal libel because of a negative book review has won his case, he told The Chronicle today. Joseph H.H. Weiler, a professor of law at New York University, said that a French court had ruled against the complaint brought against him by Karin N. Calvo-Goller, a scholar in Israel. Ms. Calvo-Goller took issue with a critical review of one of her books on the Global Law Books Web site, which Mr. Weiler edits.

via chronicle.com

…

Fair Game (2010) – IMDb – A thriller based on a book the CIA litigated to redact

2 March, 2011

| 1 Comment

| 1A, Freedom of Expression, General, Law and movies

More at IMDbPro

Fair Game (I) (2010)

… CIA operative Valerie Plame discovers her identity is allegedly leaked by the government as payback for an op-ed article her husband wrote criticizing the Bush administration. …

Stars: Naomi Watts, Sean Penn and Sonya Davison

… Plame’s status as a CIA agent was revealed by White House officials allegedly out to discredit her husband after he wrote a 2003 New York Times op-ed piece saying that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq.

via imdb.com

This movie is based on the experiences of Valerie Plame, about whom I have blogged here. The case about the redaction of the book which became the screenplay is here. Given that trailers and posters for the movie have been appearing over the last short while, I don’t expect it to suffer the same direct-to-dvd fate as befell Nothing But the Truth, more loosely based on the experiences of Judith Miller, about whom I have blogged here.

…

Case Law: Abdul v DPP, “British Soldiers go to Hell” and free speech – Isabel McArdle « Inforrm’s Blog

23 February, 2011

| No Comments

| Freedom of Expression, General

23
02
2011

In Munim Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 247 (Admin) the High Court ruled that prosecution of a group of people who had shouted slogans, including, “burn in hell”, “baby killers” and “rapists” at a parade of British soldiers, was not a breach of their right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The men’s appeal was dismissed. Not all speech is protected by freedom of expression rights, and not all protest is legitimate in the eyes of the state.

This post originally appeared on the UK Human Rights Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks.

via inforrm.wordpress.com

…

Prior restraint and permanent injunctions in defamation cases – updated

23 February, 201114 September, 2018

| 5 Comments

| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Freedom of Expression, prior restraint

In Watters v Independent Star [2010] IECC 1 (03 November 2010), the first reported judgment on the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), Matthews J granted the plaintiff a declaratory order pursuant to section 28 of the Act (also here) that an article published by the defendant was defamatory, and he made a further order pursuant to section 33 of the Act (also here) prohibiting the newspaper from re-publishing the defamation.

In an earlier post (also here), I have already looked at some issues arising from this decision. Another critical aspect of Matthew J’s judgment was that, although the plaintiff was a convicted criminal, he nevertheless possessed a residual reputation which was damaged by the newspaper’s allegations. Of course, evidence of a plaintiff’s general bad reputation is admissible in evidence in mitigation of damages (see section 31(4)(g) and section 31(6)(a) of the Act (also here); see also Hill v Cork Examiner Publications [2001] 4 IR 219, [2001] IESC 95 (14 November 2001) and the recent decision of Tugendhat J in Hunt v Evening Standard [2011] EWHC 272 (QB) (18 February 2011)). However, this is a long way from saying that such a general bad reputation renders a plaintiff libel-proof.…

Prior restraint and temporary injunctions in defamation cases

15 February, 201123 September, 2016

| 7 Comments

| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Freedom of Expression, prior restraint

Some orders have been made on foot of the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here) – see, for example, Lowry v Smyth (background here and here; coverage of the order here), Mellon v Associated Newspapers (coverage here), and Meegan v Associated Newspapers (coverage here) – but Watters v Independent Star [2010] IECC 1 (03 November 2010) remains the only reported judgment on provisions of the Act. In that case, the newspaper had published an article headlined Larry’s Secret Shower Buddy, purporting to expose a a “seedy”, “weird”, “bizarre” and “secretive” homosexual relationship in prison between the plaintiff Barry Watters and Larry Murphy, a notorious criminal who had been convicted of rape and attempted murder. Matthews J held that the plaintiff had a residual reputation which was damaged by the newspaper’s allegations. He therefore granted the plaintiff a declaratory order pursuant to section 28 of the 2009 Act (also here) that the article was defamatory, and he made a further order pursuant to section 33 of the 2009 Act (also here) prohibiting the newspaper from re-publishing the defamation. Nevertheless, the newspaper repeated the defamation: in an article alongside a photograph of Watters the newspaper had stated:

We may have to apologise to this revolting pervert but will we mean it?

…

The empty chair and the moratorium: broacasters’ duties of fairness – II

7 February, 201114 November, 2012

| 4 Comments

| Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, Election 2011, Freedom of Expression, Irish Society

I enjoy political debate; and I particularly enjoy political debates on television between political party leaders. I will therefore be a happy spectator tomorrow night when TV3 host the first such leaders’ debate of the current election campaign. But, as things now stand, Enda Kenny, the leader of Fine Gael, the party which is leading in all of the polls, will not participate. One of the consequences of his refusal to do is that he has made the broadcaster part of the story, and not simply the means by which the political story reaches us, the viewing public. (It’s not the only example of the broadcaster being the story this week: there was a spat between Newstalk and RTÉ; and there were calls for a deputy leaders’ debate and a women’s debate). As a general rule, it’s not a good thing when the broadcaster becomes part of the story; it means something has gone awry with the normal functioning of the political process. When that happens, people often reach for their lawyers. Last week, a leading member of Kenny’s party suggested that having the debate without Kenny (perhaps with an empty chair to symbolize his absence) would breach TV3’s statutory duty of impartiality.…

The empty chair and the moratorium: broacasters’ duties of fairness – I

1 February, 201114 September, 2020

| 7 Comments

| advertising, Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, Election 2011, Freedom of Expression, Irish Society

During the course of the next month or so, we are going to hear a lot about the duty of broadcasters to be balanced, fair, objective, and impartial, in current affairs matters. In fact, TV3 have twice now sought to determine exactly what that duty means. First, earlier this month, TV3 queried whether this duty requires a moratorium on political coverage the day prior to polling and on election day. Then, last Thursday night, on Tonight with Vincent Browne, Browne suggested that if Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny did not accept TV3’s invitation to participate in an election debate with other party leaders, TV3 would go ahead with the debate with an empty chair where Kenny should have been; and Browne simply rebuffed Fine Gael’s Alan Shatter’s objection that the empty chair would breach TV3’s duty of impartiality. Given how supine Irish broadcasters have been in the past about the scope and limitations of this duty, I’m delighted to see TV3 take such a robust interpretation, and I look forward to further examples during the general election. In the meantime, in this post, I want to look at the fairness issues raised by the moratorium; in a future post I will look at those raised by the empty chair.…

cearta.ie

Category: Freedom of Expression

Free speech and the rule of law

Great news: criminal libel case in France against Joe Weiler is dismissed

Journal Editor Wins Libel Case Over Negative Book Review

Fair Game (2010) – IMDb – A thriller based on a book the CIA litigated to redact

Fair Game (I) (2010)

Case Law: Abdul v DPP, “British Soldiers go to Hell” and free speech – Isabel McArdle « Inforrm’s Blog

Prior restraint and permanent injunctions in defamation cases – updated

Prior restraint and temporary injunctions in defamation cases

The empty chair and the moratorium: broacasters’ duties of fairness – II

The empty chair and the moratorium: broacasters’ duties of fairness – I