Freedom of Expression – Page 14

Judith Miller published a story which, among other things, named Valerie Plame as a CIA spy. In later grand jury proceedings, Miller declined to name her source, despite a decision of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that she had to do so, and spent 85 days in prison for her troubles. In truth, both Plame and Miller were pawns in a bigger game being played by the White House, but a lawsuit by Plame against members of the Bush administration was dismissed. In the meantime, Plame wrote a memoir about the affair: Fair Game. My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House (cover left) (Amazon | Simon & Schuster) but she was prevented by the CIA from writing about various aspects of her employment with them. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held (pdf) yesterday that this restriction did not infringe her First Amendment right to free speech.

When she joined the CIA, she signed a standard form secrecy agreement in which she agreed never to disclose classified information which she obtained in the course of her employment, and to submit publications which could do so to the CIA for pre-publication review, and – in Wilson v CIA – the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the CIA’s refused to allow her to disclose her dates of service and other information relating to her employment before 2002.…

20 slides, 5 minutes, 1 nervous speaker

2 November, 2009

| No Comments

| Freedom of Expression

This is a recipe for Ignite talks, and my TCD colleague Conor Houghton recently organised the first Ignite event in Dublin. Ignite Dublin #1 was a great event, with lots of interesting people saying, doing or performing lots of interesting things. And now, by the power of a YouTube channel, you too can have the benefit of the evening.

Here’s a rather nervous me doing one of the talks: “Blasphemy, sedition, indecency: constitutional crimes in cyberspace” (the still which the YouTube gods have chosen to use from the clip is not the most flattering pose I’ve ever struck):

But don’t judge the night on just one talk. Have a look at the other presentations and performances on the YouTube channel, and if you like the idea, check out Ignite Dublin #2, coming soon to a Science Gallery near you. I’ll be there, but this time in the audience.…

Ban on corporate donations could face legal action

18 October, 2009

| 2 Comments

| advertising, campaign finance, Freedom of Expression

Shane Coleman has a fascinating piece in today’s Sunday Tribune (with added links):

Ban on corporate donations could face legal action

A key part of the newly revised programme for government [scribd, see pp34-35] to end corporate donations to individual politicians and political parties could be open to constitutional challenge … [there is] “definitely a freedom of expression issue” about such a move and that it was “not straightforward”.

… however … the Supreme Court here has previously upheld restrictions on political advertising for reasons that “could sustain the validity” of a ban on donations to individual politicians and parties. … legislation attempting to regulate expenditure in US elections had been struck down by the US Supreme Court on freedom of expression grounds and that the European Court of Human Rights had also raised questions about such restrictions. Emphasising again the broadcast ban on political advertising, … [it is] “open question” as to whether the arguments made in the US on freedom of expression were “as strong in an Irish context” … [especially because] the Irish constitutional protection of freedom of expression was “not a particularly strong one”.

[On the other hand], speaking to the Sunday Tribune, environment minister and Green Party leader John Gormley [pictured top left] said he was confident the ban would be legally sound: … “If you have a situation as in the United States, where you have the best democracy money can buy, that is not conducive to a fairer, more equal society”.

…

Defamation, opinion, and the presumption of innocence

12 October, 200931 July, 2016

| 6 Comments

| Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Irish cases

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (vol 4) 358

With very little coverage (Day 1: Irish Times here and here | RTÉ; Day 2: Irish Times), a case which had the capacity to make a fundamental change to Irish defamation law was decided in the Supreme Court at the end of last week. Two members of the Birmingham Six have taken defamation proceedings against leading English human rights barrister Sir Louis Blom–Cooper QC (pictured left). Blom-Cooper sought to have the case struck out on the basis that his expression of opinion was constitutionally protected. However, the Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed, and (if the press reports are accurate) ducked the constitutional question, at least for the time being.

The story begins with the presumption of innocence, embodied in the quote from Blackstone, above. In Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, [1935] UKHL 1 (23 May 1935) Viscount Sankey held that “the presumption of innocence in a criminal case is strong”, and emphasised, that throughout the web of the criminal law,

… one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.

…

Tobacco advertising challenges

4 October, 200911 June, 2018

| 2 Comments

| Competition Law, Freedom of Expression, Tobacco Control

The Public Health (Tobacco) Act, 2002 (also here), as amended in 2004 (also here) – and in particular Part 3 of the 2002 Act – constitute a comprehensive control on the sale and advertising of tobacco (the Office of Tobacco Control has a comprehensive list of the relevant legislation), and the legislation largely gives effect to EU law in this field. In particular, Section 33 of the 2002 Act as amended by section 5 of the 2004 Act prohibits advertising of tobacco products and section 43 of the 2002 Act as amended by section 14 of the 2004 Act requires vendors to ensure that tobacco products are kept in a closed container that is not visible or accessible to customers. These and related provisions were brought into force by the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2008 (S.I. No. 404 of 2008) (also here) and took effect on 1 July of this year. Dublin solicitors Matheson Ormsby Prentice have a helpful description of the restrictions here. Now, today’s Sunday Times brings news that these prohibitions are to face a legal challenge in the Irish courts:

Philip Morris sues Irish government on tobacco ban

Tobacco giant Philip Morris International is to launch a legal action against the Irish government over its ban on the display of cigarettes in shops.

…

Updates: Joyce, hecklers and broadcasting

2 October, 20091 January, 2012

| 1 Comment

| Academic Freedom, Blogging, Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, Censorship, Copyright, Cyberlaw, Digital Rights, Freedom of Expression, James Joyce, journalism, Media and Communications, Regulation, Universities

I suppose if I spent ages thinking about it, I could find a spurious thread linking three stories that caught my eye over the last few days, but in truth there is none, except that they update matters which I have already discussed on this blog. (Oh, all right then, they’re all about different aspects of freedom of expression: the first shows that copyright should not prevent academic discussion; the second shows that hecklers should not have a veto; and the third is about broadcasting regulation).

First, I had noted the proclivity of the estate of James Joyce to be vigorous in defence of its copyrights; but it lost a recent case and now has agreed to pay quite substantial costs as a consequence:

Joyce estate settles copyright dispute with US academic

The James Joyce Estate has agreed to pay $240,000 (€164,000) in legal costs incurred by an American academic following a long-running copyright dispute between the two sides. The settlement brings to an end a legal saga that pre-dates the publication in 2003 of a controversial biography of Joyce’s daughter, Lucia, written by Stanford University academic Carol Shloss. …

Protest? Yes, of course! Censor? No, absolutely not!!

29 September, 20093 March, 2023

| 3 Comments

| college funding, Freedom of Expression

Free Education for Everyone (FEE) is a grassroots group of students and staff in various third level instititutions which has been set up to fight the re-introduction of fees while campaigning for genuinely free education for all. According to their About Us page:

FEE activists have organised protests, occupations and blockades across the country over the past number of months.

For example, in February of this year, their protests against former Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern‘s arrival at NUI Galway led to the cancellation of a public interview with him – and I thoroughly disapproved of this at the time. Protestors must be allowed to make their point, but, by the same toke, they must not have a veto on the speech of others. Now, it seems that FEE have Bertie in their sights again, according to a press release published this afternoon:

Press Release: UCD students plan Bertie Blockade

Student campaign group, Free Education for Everyone (FEE) is planning to planning to stage a blockade of Bertie Ahern’s appearance at a debate on the Lisbon Treaty, tonight at 7pm in UCD’s O’Reilly Hall. Following a blockade of Brian Lenihan by the group last September, Martin Mansergh, Mary Hannafin and Conor Lenihan were forced to pull out of other scheduled appearances at the college.

…

The Free World Centre

21 September, 200922 September, 2009

| No Comments

| Freedom of Expression

From the Guardian (last week, apologies for coming late to this):

Fighting for free speech

Is offence the new censorship? The launch of the Free Word Centre seeks to reopen the debate about freedom of expression

Ursula Owen

It’s entirely appropriate that the new Free Word Centre, which is launched tonight, is based in Farringdon Road. The area has associations with the written word that go back to the Middle Ages, and a long tradition of publishing, printing and radicalism. William Morris published the famous “Free Speech in the Streets” in his political broadsheet The Commonweal from 13 Farringdon Road. …

Free Word’s mission is to promote the power of the written and spoken word, and to protect creativity and free expression generally. What makes it different from the many literature houses all over Europe is that its core principle is free expression and literacy – which immediately makes its outlook international and political (not always seen as a palatable word in the arts). The ideas behind it were thrashed out by the eight founder members over five years. They are now resident in the building. Free Word is a venue, an office space, a thinking space, where media meets literature.

…

cearta.ie

Category: Freedom of Expression

I spy, but I can’t show and tell

20 slides, 5 minutes, 1 nervous speaker

Ban on corporate donations could face legal action

Ban on corporate donations could face legal action

Defamation, opinion, and the presumption of innocence

Tobacco advertising challenges

Philip Morris sues Irish government on tobacco ban

Updates: Joyce, hecklers and broadcasting

Joyce estate settles copyright dispute with US academic

Protest? Yes, of course! Censor? No, absolutely not!!

Press Release: UCD students plan Bertie Blockade

The Free World Centre

Fighting for free speech