Perinçek v. Switzerland App. no. 27510/08, 17th December 2013 - genocide denial

Perinçek v. Switzerland App. no. 27510/08, 17th December 2013 (Jacob, White, Ovey): The Court found that as the Armenian genocide was still open to historical interpretation, the comments by the applicant that calling the Armenian massacres “genocide” was an international lie did not incite hatred or violence. Note that the Court distinguished this case from holocaust denial. “The Court thus doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those in issue here, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths. In this connection, the Court clearly distinguished the present case from those concerning the negation of the crimes of the Holocaust. In those cases, the applicants had denied the historical facts even though they were sometimes very concrete, such as the existence of the gas chambers. They had denied the crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime for which there had been a clear legal basis. Lastly, the acts that they had called into question had been found by an international court to be clearly established.” (p3, press release) 'via Blog this'

Putistin v Ukraine App No. 16882/03, 21 November 2013 - Article 8 reputation for dead?

Putistin v Ukraine App No. 16882/03, 21 November 2013 (from Jacob, White and Ovey): The applicant is the son of a former Dynamo Kyiv football player who took part in a game known as the “Death Match” in 1942. His father is deceased. The game was played between a team which included professional players from Dynamo Kyiv and a team of Germans. The German team was defeated. Allegedly as a result of their victory, the Dynamo Kyiv team suffered reprisals with a number of Ukrainian players sent to a local concentration camp, where four were executed. In 2001 a newspaper published an article entitled: “The Truth about the Death Match”. The article included a quotation from the producer of a film about the match, who stated that there were only four players who had been executed, and that other players had “collaborated with the Gestapo”. The applicant claimed that it suggested that his father had collaborated with the Gestapo.
The Court accepted that the reputation of a deceased member of a person’s family might, in certain circumstances, affect that person’s private life and identity, and come within the scope of Article 8. However on the facts, the applicant was not directly affected by the publication and the level of impact on the applicant had been remote. The article had been informative and not provocative or sensationalist. 'via Blog this'

Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013

The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013: "STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

2013 No. 3028 The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013

Made 2nd December 2013

The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013(1).

A draft of these Regulations was laid before Parliament in accordance with section 5(9) of that Act and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
" 'via Blog this'

Games Rating Authority introduced 2012: The Right of Appeal

The Right of Appeal:

"The Video Standards Council is responsible for the age rating of video games for supply in the UK and other countries in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Pan-European Game Information ('PEGI') system.

As regards video games for supply in the UK the VSC (trading as the Games Rating Authority) is also responsible for the granting of classification certificates for video games pursuant to the Video Recordings Act 1984 (as amended) ('VRA').

 Any person who shall disagree with a decision made by the GRA that a video game is not suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it shall have a right of appeal against any such decision. Any such appeal shall be made to the GRA Games Appeals Panel ('GAP') which shall be an independent body set up to deal with any such appeals." 'via Blog this'

Who wants to be forgotten? TechnoLlama

Who wants to be forgotten? | TechnoLlama: "The second big development has been that Google has released its transparency report for European privacy requests for search removals, which makes for some very interesting reading. Google received 146,938 requests and evaluated 498,830 URLs for removal, of which 58% were not removed." Privacy via restricted access to news? 'via Blog this'

London libel ruling against Ethiopian dissident shows urgent need for reform

London libel ruling against Ethiopian dissident shows urgent need for reform | THE FREE SPEECH BLOG: "Mr Al Amoudi, a businessman so keen to preserve his reputation that his Wikipedia entry has been flagged up as inappropriate because it has been edited by people who have a “close connection” with him, has been granted two default judgments against Elias Kifle: a £175,000 award made in 2010, and a £180,000 award made [in 2013].

 Being based in the States and lacking the financial means to hire lawyers, Mr Kifle chose not to defend either of these claims. Last week’s case was allowed to proceed because of Mr Al Amoudi’s business activities and reputation among Ethiopians in London, five of whom gave evidence as having read the piece in question; the fact he is a “frequent visitor” to London; and the fact that Mr Al Amoudi’s children were educated in England. The judge, Mr Justice Eady, does not appear to have considered whether it is even remotely feasible for an Ethiopian journalist exiled in the US and who runs a news website on a shoestring budget to obtain the services of libel defence lawyers." 'via Blog this'

Third drugs trial involving the Sun's Mazher Mahmood collapses

Third drugs trial involving the Sun's Mazher Mahmood collapses | Media | theguardian.com: "The position is that the Crown can no longer rely on Mr Mahmood as a witness of truth in this case, and for that reason, I offer no evidence against Mr Gordon on behalf of the Crown."

Anderson had commitments in France and was unable to appear. But the prosecution said the case against him would formally be dropped at a hearing on 3 October.

 It was McCreath J., when dismissing the case against Contostavlos in July, who ruled that there were "strong grounds" to believe Mahmood had lied to him and had been "manipulating the evidence"" 'via Blog this'