Mosley loses ECtHR privacy prior notification case

Geoffrey Robertson QC's comments are balanced, read his submission for Index on Censorship to the ECtHR and a summary of the case with links to full judgment.

Super-injunction king on super-injunction balancing act Art8 v. Art 10

Mr Justice Eady in Index on Censorship "accepts that ill-informed media comment is something that goes with the territory. “I think it’s inevitable because the press are interested in the press’s own affairs. So privacy and libel get much more coverage than personal injury, commercial cases or even public law, all of which are just as important if not more important. There are lots of judgments that have been criticised where it’s quite apparent that people haven’t read them. But there’s nothing you can do about that.” 

Towards a European media law?

The European Parliament has considered an academic paper on privacy and FoE, which concludes: "I strongly believe that it is imperative to initiate an international debate about the relationship between Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR and it seems to me that the EU is the only forum in which such a debate can be meaningfully launched.
First of all, it would venture to say that, on the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 114 TFEU (in particular the "tobacco advertising" case), there would seem to be at least an arguable case that a legal basis exists for a Media Law, in order to deal with what must be regarded as more than the "abstract risk of obstacles to the exercise of fundamental freedoms". Of course, this would be a complex and delicate exercise and would necessitate looking carefully at existing legislation including "television without frontiers" |(sic) and the E-Commerce Directive. Indeed, I consider that it is surely wrong that national legislators should be left trying to construe a piece of legislation, the E-Commerce Directive, that was not intended to deal with defamation in relation to the position of ISPs and blog hosters and the like.
Secondly, considering whether an EU media law is feasible would also require us to look at the whole issue of public policy and whether a common EU public policy could be constructed on the basis of the case-law of the Court of Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the constitutional traditions of the Member States.
Thirdly, even if harmonisation of the law of defamation is not possible, other avenues may exist whereby an EU media law could make life more comfortable and predictable for journalists and citizens. I would suggest that ADR is another and could form part of such a law.  One could conceive of a voluntary ADR system for cross-border defamation cases in the EU, backed up by incentives, or at least disincentives to litigating."

CTB v. Thomas (2011) - relies on Jameel, Mosley to insist no public interest in publication

This precis of the argument tells you what you need to know - that the 'busty Big brother star' had been setting up the Man Utd captain and trying to sell her story to the tabloid rags. No public interest, no publication.
Now let's move on...

Internet Governance Part VIII

While the eG8 may well be Sarko's attempt to impose censorship on the Internet, we can at least be glad that personal data-peddling Google is opposed (and still means something in the US and UK at least), and that the Council of Europe appears to be allowing Wolfgang Kleinwachter's study group's Internet governance principles through - which largely agree with the Obama White House document of last week, and Neelie's rhetoric too. So the governments of the West are at least rhetorically in favour of a free Internet...
Meanwhile, for Europeans and Americans, here's a primer on how the infamous Norwich Pharmacal orders work...

Net neutrality in Europe: Streisand Effect and Twitter Joke Trial

Net neutrality in Europe: Streisand Effect and Twitter Joke Trial: "I suppose this will be used by the judiciary as evidence for the Prosecution against the open Internet - the footballer's attempt to sue Twi..."

3rd Human Rights in Asia Conference 2nd - 4th of June 2011

Registration open for The 3rd Human Rights in Asia Conference 2-4 June 2011- five main subject areas:

Panel Discussion on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information 

(In Memory of Kevin Boyle)

Amnesty International UK, London, 2nd June 2011, 17.30 -20.00.

Contextualising Human Rights in Asia 

Indonesian Embassy, London, 

3rd June 2011, 09.30 – 12.00.

Good Governance and the Rule of Law 

Daiwa Foundation, London, 

3rd of June 2011, 14.00 – 17.30.

Non-Discrimination 

University of Essex, Colchester 

4 June 2011, 10.00 – 13.00.

Trade, Business, Development and Human Rights 

14.00 – 17.30.