Elizabeth Loftus dared to write an article in the Skeptical Inquirer critically examining questionable claims of recovered memory abuse (Aug. 26, 2004); justices seemed skeptical of the argument Nicole Taus shouldn’t be allowed to sue for Loftus’s alleged misrepresentations to obtain information, which scares media lawyers: “Although journalists generally identify themselves truthfully, ruling for Taus would ‘create a motive’ for news sources unhappy about their portrayals ‘to belatedly contend that the reporter obtained the information by misrepresentation,’ lawyers for the media argued.” Loftus denies lying, but, at the dismissal stage, the Court assumes the allegations of the complaint are true. Whether Veronica Mars would be sued into next week is left as an exercise for the reader. (Maura Dolan, “High court considers privacy issue”, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 6).
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
Arrested Egyptian blogger
Egyptian blogger Abdelkareem Nabil Soliman, a 22-year-old law student, has been arrested by authorities for remarks critical of Islam on his blog. Tom Palmer has details (Nov. 6) and there is a defense site: FreeKareem.org.
UK free speech, cont’d
Too much liberty of expression survives in that country for the government’s liking:
New laws to clamp down on racism are being prepared by the Government after the leader of the far-right British National Party was cleared of stirring up racial hatred by attacking Islam.
Gordon Brown swiftly pledged to bring in tougher powers to raise the chance of convictions in similar cases, calling the BNP’s statements offensive.
His intervention came after an all-white jury decided that Nick Griffin, the BNP chairman, broke no law when he condemned Islam as “a wicked, vicious faith” at a secretly filmed meeting.
Plans for an offence of incitement to religious hatred were thrown out in a rare Commons defeat for the Government in February after a campaign led by the comedian Rowan Atkinson.
(Andrew Norfolk and Greg Hurst, “Race-hate laws to be changed after BNP case fails”, Times Online, Nov. 11). More: Feb. 4, etc. Comment: Rod Liddle.
“The struggle to defend free expression is defining our age”
“Fanatiques sans frontières are on the march. …In the first decade of the 21st century, the spaces of free expression, even in old-established liberal democracies, have been eroded, are being eroded and — if we don’t summon ourselves to the fight — will continue to be eroded.” (Timothy Garton Ash, The Guardian, Oct. 5).
George Will on Carlson-Wilbur case
Chant and wave placards? Not without insurance you don’t
In Valparaiso, Indiana, Martha Seroczynski stages weekly protests at the county courthouse against the war in Iraq. The Porter County Board of Commissioners has asked her to show proof of homeowner’s insurance and name the county as an additional insured. It’s a county policy of some years’ standing; “Valparaiso Elks Club member Jeanie Stevens said her organization was required to show proof of insurance for its Flag Day ceremony on June 14 at the square.” Ms. Seroczynski’s insurer, however, has raised objections, and that’s aside from the question of why having insurance should be a prerequisite for the right to protest in the first place. County attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger has attempted to resolve the problem by asking Ms. S to sign a waiver promising not to sue the county if injured, but she refuses. “Her right to protest does not relieve us of our responsibility to protect the liability of the other 140,000 citizens of this county,” County Commissioner John Evans has said. (“War protester asked for insurance proof to continue protests”, AP/Fort Wayne (Ind.) News-Sentinel, Aug. 27; Robyn Monaghan, “Protester furor fuels free speech debate”, Northwest Indiana Times, Sept. 6).
Speak freely, until Friday
“As of Friday, when the 60-day blackout period for ‘electioneering communications’ by nonprofit interest groups begins, political speech will enjoy less protection than dirty movies. While a sexually explicit film is protected by the First Amendment if it has some socially redeeming value, an ‘electioneering communication’ is forbidden even if it deals with important and timely public policy issues.” (Jacob Sullum, syndicated/Reason.com, Sept. 6).
Talk show subpoenaed in Boston mosque suit
The Islamic Society of Boston, which is engaged in numerous lawsuits against media organizations and critics of its activities (see Jan. 5, May 19), has now subpoenaed local radio talk station WTTK-FM “after one of its prominent hosts, Michael Graham, discussed the [ISB’s mosque-building] project on the air…. after reviewing the subpoena, attorney Harvey Silverglate, a Cambridge civil liberties specialist, described it as ‘extraordinary.'”, noting that it requests, among other things, “materials used by Graham to support his remarks about the ISB… and communications between Graham and other defendants or attorneys involved in the ISB defamation suit.” (Laura Crimaldi, “Islamic Society subpoenas WTTK in defamation suit”, Boston Herald, Aug. 27).
“Express Yourself” — But Not in Duesseldorf
One of the points that I often emphasize at my own blog is that there simply is no First Amendment in Europe.
Just ask Madonna:
Prosecutors plan to keep an eye on Madonna’s weekend concert in Duesseldorf to see if the pop diva repeats the mock crucifixion scene that has drawn fire from religious leaders.
Johannes Mocken, a spokesman for prosecutors in Duesseldorf, said Tuesday that a repeat of that scene during Sunday’s concert could be construed as insulting religious beliefs.
…
Mocken said authorities would rely on media reports rather than sending observers to the concert and that the show might be covered by laws protecting artistic freedoms.
Read that again: “might be covered.” So not only is there no blanket freedom of expression, but what partial protections do exist are so vague that even the prosecutors don’t know how they apply to whom under what circumstances.
London’s (and Belfast’s) libel-shoppers
Britney Spears has resorted to the courts of justice in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to slap down the National Enquirer, while singers Paula Abdul and Whitney Houston are reported to be contemplating similar trips in search of the plaintiff-friendly libel laws of the United Kingdom. Aren’t they just a little bit ashamed of themselves? The “speedy results and whopping damages” of defamation suits in the U.K. “might be nice for the celebrity claimants. But it’s bad for those of us who live in Britain permanently. These libel tourists are helping to prop up our illiberal, antidemocratic, and ‘repugnant’ libel laws, which are an offense to free speech and open debate.” (Brendan O’Neill, “Throwing our judicial junk in Britain’s backyard (or courts)”, Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 24). But actually, reports Mark Stephens in The Times (London) Online, it is global business magnates rather than entertainment figures who are nowadays the busiest libel tourists in the British courts. They come from America, Russia and the Middle East to squelch the naughty insinuations of the financial press that not everything about their business dealings is on the up and up (“New celebrities of the libel courts”, Jul. 18).