Freedom of Speech, Support for Terrorism, and the Challenge of Global Constitutional Law
by Daphne Barak-Erez (Tel Aviv University – Buchmann Faculty of Law) and David Scharia (Counter Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate UN Security Council)
forthcoming Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 2, 2011; via SSRN
Abstract:
In the recent case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, [here] the Supreme court of the United States ruled that a criminal prohibition on advocacy carried out in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization is constitutionally permissible: it is not tantamount to an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech.
This Article aims to understand both the decision itself and its implications in the context of the global effort to define the limits of speech that aims to support or promote terrorism. More specifically, the Article compares the European approach, which focuses on whether the content of the speech tends to support terrorism, with the U.S. approach, which focuses on criminalizing speakers who have links to terrorist organizations. Both approaches are evaluated against the background of the adoption of Resolution 1624 by the United Nations Security Council in 2005, which called on states to prohibit by law incitement to commit terrorist acts.
Marital property agreements (pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements): Law Commission of England and Wales
Marital property agreements (pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements)
Consultation paper
On 11 January 2011 we published a consultation paper. This reviews the current law of marital property agreements, discusses options for reform and puts forward questions for consultees. The consultation closes on 11 April 2011.
Other documents
We have prepared a summary of the consultation paper and a press release.
via lawcom.gov.uk
For the position in Ireland, compare the Report of the Study Group on Pre-nuptial Agreements (2007). Unless and until these reports are implemented, the leading case in the UK is Radmacher v Granatino[2010] UKSC 42 (20 October 2010); the most recent case in Ireland is S v S [2009] IEHC 579 (27 July 2009); and the leading case is still MacMahon v MacMahon [1913] IR 428, in which the Court of Appeal (Palles CB, Holmes and Cherry LJJ) held that pre-nuptial agreements were invalid, unless made between married but separated parties to achieve a re-union (though many of the authorities relied on in that case were less persuasive in Radmacher).
Our Desperate, 250-Year-Long Search for a Gender-Neutral Pronoun | The Awl
Our Desperate, 250-Year-Long Search for a Gender-Neutral Pronoun
All of a sudden Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia decided to revive the crazymaking debate regarding the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection for women—or, apparently, lack thereof. … In any case, the original rationale for excluding women from the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment did not hold and has not ever held any water from the moment it was ratified until now. All of which brings us to the backstory of the Fourteenth Amendment, and to the thorny history of gender-neutral language in English.
via m.theawl.com
This is a great post: polemical, enlightening, entertaining. Go, read, enjoy.
The Faculty Lounge: Law and Film: Despicable Me
Law and Film: Despicable Me
… I’ve been reminded of this back-and-forth interplay between parties (the law professor and the student, or the secured party and the debtor) as my daughters have watched (over and over and over and …) one of the DVDs they received for Christmas: Despicable Me. In this delightful animated film, the lead character (Gru) adopts three little girls (Margo, Agnes, and Edith) to assist him in stealing a “shrink ray” gun from a competing villian. Gru is not used to having three little girls in his house, and he quickly sets about to establish some boundaries. …
It really is quite charming. But it also is a wonderful illustration of what can happen if a person states an overly broad position — a concern that can arise in the law school classroom, as well as during document negotiations. For that reason, perhaps this snippet from the film merits consideration for inclusion in any “law and film” course.
This is plainly another candidate for Ted Tjadan’s list of law-related movies of 2010! And Jordan Furlong even sees lessons for the legal profession in an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine.
The 1709 Blog: Willy the Wizard falters in the US, but can he still pull a rabbit from
Willy the Wizard falters in the US, but can he still pull a rabbit from
The BBC report, “Harry Potter plagiarism case dismissed” (here), will not have escaped the eagle eyes of 1709 Blog readers. The headline refers not to the ongoing litigation in England and Wales between the estate of Adrian Jacobs and the JK Rowling crew, which is set to go to a full trial (see earlier posts on the 1709 Blog here and on the IPKat here) but to its United States counterpart.
I’ve blogged here about the ongoing litigation in England and Wales, and if this decision doesn’t encourage the applicant to settle those proceedings, no doubt I shall blog about the outcome in due course. In the meantime, the US decision is enough to be going on with.
PS: in the title to the 1709 blog post, I wonder where the Wizard is pulling the rabit from?
Late to the defamation party
In the UK, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg (pictured left) has announced significant reforms of Britain’s libel laws, which I consider a very good thing.
During a wide-ranging speech today on civil liberties, he said:
We will be publishing a draft defamation bill in the Spring. We intend to provide a new statutory defence for those speaking out in the public interest, whether they be big broadcasters or the humble blogger. And we intend to clarify the law around the existing defences of fair comment, and justification.
We believe claimants should not be able to threaten claims on what are essentially trivial grounds. We are going to tackle libel tourism. And we’re going to look at how the law can be updated to better reflect the realities of the internet. Separately, we are also going to address the high costs of defamation proceedings. … Our aim is to turn English libel laws from an international laughing stock to an international blueprint.
Welcome though this is, as with many political developments, it is in danger of being overspun or at least oversold. According to yesterday’s Guardian:
…Britain will become the first country to ask parliament to set out its libel laws, and provide greater clarity, his officials said.
TV3 wants end to broadcast media blackout prior to election · TheJournal.ie
TV3 wants end to broadcast media blackout prior to election
Image: Gruenemann via FlickrUPDATED 13.45
TV3 IS “DEMANDING” an end to the moratorium which forbids broadcast media from reporting most political coverage just prior to a general election. …
Currently, a 48-hour moratorium is applied to such reporting on the day prior to polling and on the day the country goes to the polls. … In a statement today, TV3 says … that “there is no legal requirement for the moratorium under Irish law” and that there is no provision in the Broadcast Act of 2009 for such a moratorium. TV3 also questions the legality of the moratorium in relation to the free speech guarantees set out in the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. …
The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland confirmed to TheJournal.ie that they have received the submission for TV3 and are giving it their “full consideration”. A spokesperson for the BAI said that the body is currently working on the final draft code for broadcasting during and in the run-up to the election. (This is the Draft Election Code, which can be viewed in full here) …
via thejournal.ie
‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ – Removing the N Word from Huck Finn: Top 10 Censored Books – TIME
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
By Mark Twain
In 1885, the Concord Public Library in Massachusetts banned the year-old book for its “coarse language” — critics deemed Mark Twain’s use of common vernacular (slang) as demeaning and damaging. A reviewer dubbed it “the veriest trash … more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people.” Little Women author Louisa May Alcott lashed out publicly at Twain, saying, “If Mr. Clemens [Twain’s original name] cannot think of something better to tell our pure-minded lads and lasses he had best stop writing for them.” (That the N word appears more than 200 times throughout the book did not initially cause much controversy.) In 1905, the Brooklyn Public Library in New York followed Concord’s lead, banishing the book from the building’s juvenile section with this explanation: “Huck not only itched but scratched, and that he said sweat when he should have said perspiration.” Twain enthusiastically fired back, and once said of his detractors: “Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” Luckily for him, the book’s fans would eventually outnumber its critics. “It’s the best book we’ve had,” Ernest Hemingway proclaimed. “All American writing comes from that.
