30 Mar 11 | Uncategorized
Xavier Alvarez told some pretty big lies about his military service during a 2007 municipal water-board meeting in California — that he retired as a US Marine after 25 years, during which time he was awarded the prestigious Medal of Honor. When it turned out Alvarez had never even been a Marine at all (let alone many of the other things he has claimed to be over the years – a Detroit Red Wings hockey player, an Iranian hostage crisis hero), the water board member was convicted under a 2006 federal law making it a crime to lie about receiving military honours.
Last week, an appeals court reaffirmed a lower-court ruling throwing out the conviction on logic that has been praised by free-speech advocates: The First Amendment, the court concluded, protects fibs told about military service, rendering the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. Other courts have disagreed about the constitutionality of the law, and the final word come could eventually from the Supreme Court.
Several judges dissented, arguing that “the right to lie is not a fundamental right under the Constitution.” But Chief Judge Alex Kozinski countered that criminalizing lies about military service could lead to making even more mundane falsehoods illegal.
“If false factual statements are unprotected,” he wrote, “then the government can prosecute not only the man who tells tall tales of winning the congressional Medal of Honor, but also the JDater who falsely claims he’s Jewish or the dentist who assures you it won’t hurt a bit. Phrases such as ‘I’m working late tonight, hunny,’ ‘I got stuck in traffic’ and ‘I didn’t inhale’ could all be made into crimes.”
(JDate, which must surely be making its debut here in sweeping legal scholarship, is a popular online dating site for Jewish American singles.)
11 Mar 11 | Uncategorized
The Financial Times leader today cuts right to the heart of the debate about privacy sparked by Sir Fred Goodwin seemingly bizarre injunction, which it is alleged prohibits the press from identifying the former RBS chief as a “banker”:
Super-injunctions, which forbid journalists from reporting that they have been granted, as well as preventing disclosure of the information that is their subject, have become increasingly popular. They are a menace to democracy and should be scrapped.
It is clear that there is a balance to be struck between the right of an individual to a private life, and people’s right to be appraised of matters that are of public interest. But of late, driven by a series of rulings based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the pendulum has swung too far in favour of greater privacy.
Sections of the press have done themselves no favours by intrusive reporting of private matters whose disclosure is not in the public interest. That is regrettable. But it does not alter the fact that the public has a right to be able to make informed choices about those whose actions make an impact on their lives. Information is the life-blood of democracy. Too often, super-injunctions are a tool used to thwart this, protecting the rich and powerful by enabling them to gag the press
The piece goes on to suggest the need for a properly drafted privacy law. Of course, the fear could be that a statute privacy law could be even harsher on the press than the current situation is.
11 Mar 11 | Uncategorized
The Financial Times leader today cuts right to the heart of the debate about privacy sparked by Sir Fred Goodwin seemingly bizarre injunction, which it is alleged prohibits the press from identifying the former RBS chief as a “banker”:
Super-injunctions, which forbid journalists from reporting that they have been granted, as well as preventing disclosure of the information that is their subject, have become increasingly popular. They are a menace to democracy and should be scrapped.
It is clear that there is a balance to be struck between the right of an individual to a private life, and people’s right to be appraised of matters that are of public interest. But of late, driven by a series of rulings based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the pendulum has swung too far in favour of greater privacy.
Sections of the press have done themselves no favours by intrusive reporting of private matters whose disclosure is not in the public interest. That is regrettable. But it does not alter the fact that the public has a right to be able to make informed choices about those whose actions make an impact on their lives. Information is the life-blood of democracy. Too often, super-injunctions are a tool used to thwart this, protecting the rich and powerful by enabling them to gag the press
The piece goes on to suggest the need for a properly drafted privacy law. Of course, the fear could be that a statute privacy law could be even harsher on the press than the current situation is.
17 Feb 11 | Uncategorized
The UK government’s Protection of Freedoms Bill is highly relevant for anyone interested in Article 10 rights. While the bill gives the impression of positive steps for the protection of civil liberties, critics are quick to warn of its limitations and the government’s piecemeal approach. The bill, now in between first and second reading stage in the House of Commons, looks at:
- freedom of information – extending the freedom of information regime to cover companies wholly owned by two or more public authorities
- right to data – creating an obligation on departments and other public authorities to proactively release datasets in a reusable format
SA Mathieson, news editor of Guardian Government Computing, is optimistic that this will give a “bit more freedom” to government data.
Photographers will be especially interested in the part on counter-terrorism:
- This Part introduces safeguards against the misuse of counter-terrorist legislation by permanently reducing the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 14 days and replacing the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a power that is exercisable in significantly more restricted circumstances.
In the bill’s consultation stage [PDF], civil liberty groups and the National Union of Journalists raised concerns about stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act and that “police on the ground were not sufficiently aware of restrictions on how the law should be applied”. Cian Murphy writes on the Guardian Legal network:
Section 44 was a wholly illiberal provision which allowed police officers to stop and search individuals in designated areas without having to show reasonable suspicion. The subsequent sections elaborated on that power. The government has been committed to repealing the section since last summer – but only after the European court of human rights held that it was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
But don’t celebrate too soon. As Murphy reports:
Nonetheless, police powers abhor a vacuum, and as signalled in December, the section 44 power is replaced with new stop and search powers provided for by sections 59 to 62. The proposed new powers, at first glance, may be an improvement on section 44. But they have already been criticised and will require more considered scrutiny over the coming months – especially in light of possible amendments as the bill moves through Parliament.
The issues extend beyond the scope of this bill. Index on Censorship is currently in discussions about freedom of expression protection in the Public Order Act and Communications Act. We’re also interested in hearing your thoughts about the new bill, and its effect on free speech. Tweet us @indoncensorship, or leave a comment below.
