Ireland has ‘serious gaps’ in its human rights protection, according to a new report published today.
The Irish Human Rights Commission published its report to the UN on Ireland’s Human Rights Record and called for immediate action.
Ireland will be examined for the first time on its record on all of its human rights obligations under a new UN process called the Universal Periodic Review, in October.
The UK’s Ministry of Justice has announced its long-awaited consultation on the reform of the UK’s libel laws. Much of the territory covered by draft Defamation Bill was covered in Ireland by the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), though there are some important differences as well. In this post, I want briefly to compare and contrast the UK Bill [the Bill] with the Irish Act [the Act]. To spoil the conclusion (for those of you who won’t read further than this opening paragraph) the Bill is largely in line the Act, and, in this respect, I am reminded of the Irish adage “tosach maith, leath na h-oibre“: a good start is half the work. In the end, that is what the Bill is: a good start.
Similarities
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for a defence of responsible publication on matter of public interest. In many ways, this analagous to the defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest contained in section 26 of the Act. But clause 2 is a far less mealy mouthed version of the defence than the unworkably narrow section 26 is: there are fewer hurdles to be jumped by a defendant seeking to rely upon it.…
On 26 March 2009, the Minister for Finance confirmed that the Government had decided to implement a moratorium on public service recruitment, precluding recruitment, promotion, renewal of fixed-term contracts, or payment of an allowance for the performance of duties at a higher grade. The standard letter sent to the various government departments emphasised that exceptions to this principle would arise only in very limited circumstances and would require the prior sanction of the Minister for Finance. There were additional rules for Education and Health, and these were supplemented for the third level sector by a controversial Employment Control Framework. That framework has now run its course, but news has seeped out over the course of the weekend that, in one of his last acts before leaving office, Brian Lenihan, the outgoing Minister for Finance, last week sanctioned a successor Employment Control Framework. It has been been much derided on Twitter at #ecf11, and it has drawn a chorus of detailed criticism from Des Fitzgerald, Ferdinand von Prondzynski, Colm Kearney, Paul Walsh, Dermot Frost, and Donncha O’Connell. For a bunch of academics, the unanimity is extraordinary. All are agreed that this new Framework is a thoroughly bad idea.…
In a now-infamous wardrobe malfunction in the course of the half-time entertainment for Super Bowl XXXVIII (2004), during a duet between Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, Timberlake fleetingly exposed Jackson’s right breast, which was adorned with a large nipple shield (the pair are pictured left immediately after the incident). In an exciting game, the New England Patriots beat the Carolina Panthers 32-29, but Jackson got all of the post-game media exposure (sorry!). She insisted afterwards that Timberlake removed more clothing than he should have done and that it was not her intention that it go as far as it did; but, in the face of public outrage, the Federal Communications Commission condemned it as a stunt, and the matter has even – briefly – reached the US Supreme Court (pdf).
Other wardrobe malfunctions can be even more embarassing. In Sinnott v Carlow Nationalist (already discussed on this blog here, here, here, here, here, and here), the Circuit Court and the High Court held that the publication by the Carlow Nationalist newspaper of a photograph of Mr Sinnott involved in a football match in which his private parts were exposed constituted an invasion of his privacy.…
In The Life Presents: Censoring Wojnarowicz
3/3/2011 —
In The Life Media looks at the controversy surrounding the removal of David Wojnarowicz’s video installation, “A Fire in My Belly,” from the National Portrait Gallery’s Hide/Seek show at the Smithsonian. The video, which represents the artist’s anger as he faced death from AIDS ignited outrage among conservative lawmakers and religious leaders.
This is another follow-up to my blogpost on whether galleries should display offensive art. Earlier follow-up via here.
Net neutrality matters. The basic principle of equal access to the internet – and consequent absence of discriminatory restrictions upon or priorities for ISPs, governments, classes of content, kinds of equipment, or modes of communication – is crucial to the preservation of online freedom, ensuring that the internet remains a free, open, and democratic forum of communication. Much of the debate has concentrated on the position in the US, especially after the recent Federal Communication Commission‘s (controversial) Open Internet initiative. However, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission had already issued its (equally controversial) internet traffic management review; and the EU has recently conducted a public consultation on The open internet and net neutrality in Europe.
Dr Daithí Mac Sithigh (UEA | Lex Ferenda | @macsithigh) has written a superb paper on net neutrality in the EU and Canada ((2011) 14(8) Journal of Internet Law 3; via SSRN):
…Regulating the Medium: Reactions to Network Neutrality in the European Union and Canada
Abstract: In this contribution on network neutrality, the expression-related elements of this issue are considered, including a case study of Ireland, highlighting the broad powers enjoyed by ISPs, and discussing whether the problem is a genuine one.
Daithí has written the post I was going to write on the impact of the new Programme for Government on media, IT & IP law. It’s an excellent post, and there is little I could usefully add. One of the key points is the promise:
We will pioneer within the EU a model of ‘fair use’ in European Copyright Law, like in the USA, which effectively permits the use of portions of a copyrighted work so long as the normal economic exploitation of the originating work is not undermined. This will allow internet companies and other digital innovators to bring their services to market.
I wrote before Christmas about overactive Bank of Ireland ATMs. Exactly the same issue has just arisen in Australia:
Consumer groups are calling on the Commonwealth Bank to explain what went wrong with its ATMs on Tuesday, with a glitch resulting in some customers withdrawing excessive amounts from the machines. Police charged two men in Sydney on Wednesday with fraud for allegedly withdrawing extra money from the faulty machines during the meltdown.
As with the Bank of Ireland ATMs, the CBA machines operated in standby mode, but if you take money to which you are not entitled, it may very well constitute theft – and even if it doesn’t, it will certainly give rise to contractual or restitutionary duties to return the overpayments. I have this news via Legal Eagle on Skepticlawyer, who argues that
…… the Commonwealth Bank will definitely have recourse to recover the money from individuals who have taken advantage of the glitch in its computer processes, subject to the defence of good faith change of position. It’s my theory that one of the reasons behind the rise of unjust enrichment law is electronic banking and the mistakes which arise therein. Seriously! I’ve spoken before about the paradigm case, Chase Manhattan Bank N.A.
© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress
