Human Rights and Internet Access: ECHR Chamber Ruling

Human Rights and Internet Access Ruling: "The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that restriction of Internet access without a strict legal framework regulating the scope of the ban and affording the guarantee of judicial review to prevent possible abuses amounts to a violation of freedom of expression
In a Chamber judgment in the case of Ahmet Yildirm v Turkey (application no. 3111/10), the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned a court decision to block access to Google Sites, which hosted an Internet site whose owner was facing criminal proceedings for insulting the memory of Atatürk. As a result of the decision, access to all other sites hosted by the service was blocked.
It should be noted that this is a Chamber judgment and that it may be referred to the Grand Chamber during the next three-months but the very particular circumstances probably make such an appeal unlikely." 'via Blog this'

Council of Europe documents on freedom of expression

Sources of declarations and recommendations including "Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the Desirability of International Standards dealing with Forum Shopping in respect of Defamation, “Libel Tourism”, to Ensure Freedom of Expression (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 July 2012 at the 1147th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)" 'via Blog this'

Leveson: the right solution to the wrong problem?

THE WRONG SOLUTION TO THE WRONG PROBLEM « Pandaemonium: " liberals and radicals... have vacated the space of free speech, allowing reactionaries to occupy it. In this the debate about press freedom mirrors that of free speech more broadly. There, too, reactionaries like Dutch politician Geert Wilders and the French Front National leader Marine le Pen have been able to promote themselves as martyrs to free speech. Why? Because liberals and the left have effectively given up on freedom of expression, taking to demanding more regulations and restrictions on unacceptable speech. Let us not repeat that mistake again." 'via Blog this'

UK press regulation: Lessons from Denmark?

BBC News - UK press regulation: Lessons from Denmark?: "As Lord Justice Leveson puts the finishing touches to his recommendations for a new method of regulating the press in Britain, could the Danish model of so-called co-regulation be an option for the UK?
It is many British newspapers' worst nightmare: A system where complaints from readers are handled by a press council set up by Act of Parliament, whose members are government-appointed, and which has the power to demand that erring titles be fined.
How can you possibly have that kind of government oversight and a free press? Yet that's exactly what they have in Denmark, a fully functioning democracy which values press freedom highly." 'via Blog this'

Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB) (25 July 2008)

Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB) (25 July 2008):
"14. ...Particular characteristics which I should have in mind are that [bulletin boards] are read by relatively few people, most of whom will share an interest in the subject-matter; they are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out; those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or "give and take".
15. The participants in these exchanges were mostly using pseudonyms (or "avatars"), so that their identities will often not be known to others. This is no doubt a disinhibiting factor affecting what people are prepared to say in this special environment.

16. When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions. People do not often take a "thread" and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it.

17. It is this analogy with slander which led me in my ruling of 12 May to refer to "mere vulgar abuse", which used to be discussed quite often in the heyday of slander actions. It is not so much a defence that is unique to slander as an aspect of interpreting the meaning of words. From the context of casual conversations, one can often tell that a remark is not to be taken literally or seriously and is rather to be construed merely as abuse. That is less common in the case of more permanent written communication, although it is by no means unknown. But in the case of a bulletin board thread it is often obvious to casual observers that people are just saying the first thing that comes into their heads and reacting in the heat of the moment. The remarks are often not intended, or to be taken, as serious. A number of examples will emerge in the course of my judgment." 

And in summary:

"Are there really genuine issues which require to be resolved or is it the case, on the other hand, that this litigation when viewed as a whole [37 libel actions launched], and in its proper context, is such as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute? Is there really any legitimate or tangible advantage to be gained? ...I am fully entitled to take into account the nature of the issues as they appear at the moment and that I am entitled to protect the interests of the public purse and of the many defendants involved in the light of those clear impressions. Indeed, I have an obligation to ensure that the court's process is being used compatibly with the overriding objective. The court is today required to be more proactive in such matters, especially when dealing with a number of people who cannot afford legal advice to protect their best interests.

- ...It seems that there is the prospect of over 20 further libel actions. This makes it particularly appropriate for me to consider the matter referred to me by the Master on 25 April as to whether or not there is a case for a civil restraint order.... Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held... It would be wasteful to let proceedings go forward merely on the footing of a series of formulaic assertions to the effect that the individual concerned did not honestly believe what he was saying. There is accordingly no realistic prospect of any such claims achieving the only legitimate goal of vindicating reputation.

- I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim. I am focusing only on these particular circumstances. It does seem to me appropriate to characterise these claims as totally without merit. I will therefore make an extended civil restraint order, which means that Mr Smith cannot launch any further libel proceedings arising out of the Langbar matter based upon bulletin board blogs without obtaining my written permission.

Pub cheap talk, eh? Reminds me of my extended comparison in the final chapter of 'Net Neutrality': 'via Blog this'

Five Myths about Chinese Internet censorship

Five Myths about the Chinese Internet - By Eveline Chao | Foreign Policy: "In 2000, President Bill Clinton said: "There's no question China has been trying to crackdown on the Internet. Good luck! That's sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall." But, as Ng put it, "China has the world's biggest nail gun."" 'via Blog this'

Defamation Bill 2012-13 — due before Lords Committee

Defamation Bill 2012-13 — UK Parliament: "The aim of the Bill is to reform the law of defamation to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. The Bill makes a number of substantive changes to the law of defamation, but is not designed to codify the law into a single statute. Key areas:

• includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation
• removes the current presumption in favour of a jury trial
• introduces a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public interest"
• provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned
• introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair comment." 'via Blog this'