Freedom of Expression – Page 19

Since writing my previous post, I have read (hat tip: Ninth Level Ireland) a trenchant statement of the opposite view by Prof William Schabas, Director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at NUI Galway. His argument is twofold. First, he refers to the EU Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia (pdf). Second, he argues that, whatever about that Decision, Ivring should not as a matter of principle be granted a prestigious platform by the Lit & Deb. He illustrates this second point with a rhetorical flourish:

There are also cranks who believe that the earth is flat, but we don’t invite them to deliver seminars in the geography department.

And he concludes that

… any reasonable reading of the EU Framework Decision should lead to the conclusion that he cannot be welcome in Ireland, or at the University.

…

Free speech means freedom for the thought we hate

27 January, 200911 February, 2016

| 12 Comments

| Freedom of Expression, IFCO

Freedom of expression matters most where the expression in question is unpopular: if it it is to mean anything, it must mean “freedom for the thought that we hate” (US v Schwimmer 279 US 644, 655 (1929) Holmes J); it covers not only mainstream ideas which hardly need protection, but also those that “offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population” (Handyside v United Kingdom 5493/72 [1976] ECHR 5 (7 December 1976) [49]). That is why this blog has defended the right to freedom of expression especially when it involves unpopular opinions or unpopular speakers.

There are no more unpopular ideas than the denial of the Holocaust, and there are no more unpopular speakers than David Irving. Even here, in my view, we should give speech a chance: the best way to ensure that we never forget the Holocaust is to debate it at every turn, not to suppress speech from Irving’s ilk. The Oxford Union got good headlines last year when it invited Irving to debate about freedom of expression. Now it seems that NUI, Galway’s Literary and Debating Society are about to repeat the trick. …

Sedition and Lèse-majesté

26 January, 200927 January, 2009

| 3 Comments

| Censorship, Defamation Bill 2006, Freedom of Expression, Sedition

Two Australian stories recently caught my eye; and, although at first blush the only link is Australia, there is in fact a deeper connection. The first is from the BBC news Website:

Writer jailed for Thai ‘insult’

Australian writer Harry Nicolaides has been sentenced to three years in a Thai jail for insulting the monarchy. Nicolaides wrote a novel four years ago, which contained a brief passage referring to an unnamed crown prince. It sold just seven copies.

He admitted the charge of insulting the royal family, but said he was unaware he was committing an offence. Thailand’s monarchy is sheltered from public debate by some of the world’s most stringent “lèse-majesté” laws.

…

Incitement

22 January, 200930 January, 2010

| 2 Comments

| Blasphemy, Freedom of Expression

From yesterday’s Irish Times:

Rwanda jails ex-minister over genocide

KIGALI – A Rwandan court jailed former justice minister Agnes Ntamabyariro for life yesterday after finding her guilty of incitement during the 1994 genocide.

Ntamabyariro is the first senior former government official to be tried by the authorities in Kigali over the killing of 800,000 minority ethnic Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus.

“She has been individually implicated in those crimes,” Augustine Nkusi, Rwanda’s national prosecutor, told reporters. – (Reuters)

She is to appeal. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had convicted directors of the Rwandan radio station Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) of incitement to commit genocide (Case No ICTR-99-52-T The Prosecutor v Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, and Hassan Ngeze; excellent background summary here), but this is the first such case in the Rwandan courts.

From today’s Irish Times:

Dutch MP faces prosecution for anti-Islam film

AMSTERDAM – Right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has made a short film accusing the Koran of inciting violence, must be prosecuted for anti-Islam comments, an Amsterdam court said yesterday.

The court overruled the public prosecutor, who had argued that Mr Wilders, whose film Fitna urged Muslims to tear out “hate-filled” verses from the Koran, was protected by the right to free speech.

…

Journalists, sources, bloggers, privilege

13 January, 200926 March, 2009

| 5 Comments

| Freedom of Expression, Journalists' sources

I believe in equality for everyone,
except reporters and photographers.

Mahatma Ghandi
[source]

With pending decisions relating to the protection of journalists’ sources in the Supreme Courts in Ireland and Canada, to say nothing of a new movie inspired by the travails of Judith Miller (pictured above left), a student note in the current Columbia Law Review (December 2008, Vol 108, No 8,) is very timely (notwithstanding Ghandi’s quip, above). Here’s the abstract:

David Abramowicz “Calculating the Public Interest in Protecting Journalists’ Confidential Sources”

Most federal circuits recognize a qualified journalist’s privilege not to identify a confidential source. In shielding journalists from some subpoenas, those courts recognize, at least implicitly, a public interest in newsgathering sufficient to overcome its interest in obtaining evidence. But courts pay little attention to the nature or scope of the newsgathering interest. They treat it as fixed, an approach that overlooks the reality that certain uses of confidential sources benefit the public more than others. Some judges and commentators have called for a flexible approach toward measuring the newsgathering interest, but their proposals, which rely on an analysis of the value of a confidential source’s information, would yield unpredictable results. These proposals have not gained traction.

…

Mark Twain exercises the Privilege of the Grave

29 December, 20086 January, 2009

| 9 Comments

| Freedom of Expression

In an article written in 1905 but published for the first time in the most recent New Yorker, Mark Twain (left) exercises the privilege of the grave: that of the expression that is really free. In his view, although we may in theory have the right to free speech, nevertheless, in practice, prudence and social convention prevent us from exercising it, so that the only time we can really exercise it is from the grave, whence we don’t care what others might think of the views which we might express. …

Normal service is being resumed: religious and political advertising bans

19 December, 200814 September, 2020

| 8 Comments

| advertising, Freedom of Expression, Media and Communications

Regular readers of this blog will know that section 20(4) of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 (also here) and section 10(3) of the Radio and Television Act, 1988 (also here) as amended by section 65 of the Broadcasting Act, 2001 (also here) prohibit broadcast advertising in Ireland directed to any religious or political end (see here | here | here | here | here | here).

Edit: The remainder of this long post discusses the validity of such bans in the US, the ECHR, Ireland and the UK, by way of background three recent developments: debate about a failure to take a current legislative opportunity to amend the Irish legislation, another ban on an Irish religious advertisement, and an ECHR decision striking down a political advertising ban. …

Journalists’ Sources – Lessons from Canada?

28 September, 200828 March, 2009

| 6 Comments

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

Not only will the Irish Supreme Court have the opportunity on the appeal in Mahon v Keena [2007] IEHC 348 (23 October 2007) (discussed here and here by Daithí) to discuss the constitutional protections, if any, for journalists’ sources, but I learn from The Court that the Supreme Court of Canada will also have a similar opportunity this term on the appeal in R v The National Post 2008 ONCA 139 (CanLII):

When does freedom of the press cede to investigating crime?: R. v. National Post

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether confidential sources for newspaper reporters are entitled to a claim of privilege similar to that of confidential police informants. The case of National Post v. R. … will settle a long-standing grey area in Canadian media law, but to get there, the SCC will be asked to mediate between the conflicting public interests of investigating crime on the one hand, and the freedom of the press on the other. …

The Canadian case turns on whether a journalist can assert privilege over a bank document received from a confidential source which disclosed highly incriminating evidence of a conflict of interest by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in a property scandal which the bank and M Chrétien claimed was fabricated.…

cearta.ie

Category: Freedom of Expression

Irving at the Lit & Deb: A reply to Prof Schabas

Free speech means freedom for the thought we hate

Sedition and Lèse-majesté

Writer jailed for Thai ‘insult’

Incitement

Rwanda jails ex-minister over genocide

Dutch MP faces prosecution for anti-Islam film

Journalists, sources, bloggers, privilege

Mark Twain exercises the Privilege of the Grave

Normal service is being resumed: religious and political advertising bans

Journalists’ Sources – Lessons from Canada?

When does freedom of the press cede to investigating crime?: R. v. National Post