18 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
Home Secratary Theresa May has issued an exclusion order for the controversial Muslim preacher Zakir Naik.
At first glance this is similar to the ban on Dutch MP Geert WIlders imposed when he was due to show his film Fitna in the House of Lords last year. The ban on Wilders, whose film juxtaposed verses from the Koran with images of terrorist atrocities, backfired on two counts. First, it simply made him a free speech martyr and drew attention to his scare-mongering views that were freely available on the Internet. Secondly, it wasn’t sustainable — Wilders won an appeal against the ban at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. In retrospect (and as it seemed at the time too) it would have been far better to have let Wilders have his say, and to have met his arguments with counterarguments and evidence. I made a podcast about this criticising the Government action at the time (Listen here)
Does that mean that on free speech grounds we should discourage the UK Government from imposing a ban on Naik? Here’s a possible difference between the cases: Naik has reputedly expressed sympathy for Osama Bin Laden’s terrorism and seems in some of his pronouncements to be advocating actual violence against Americans and against those who change their religion.
If that is correct, then there may be good reason for a ban. The most obvious acceptable limit to free speech is the point at which a speaker incites violence. Yet, the situation gets more complicated. Naik has issued a press release in which he “unequivocally condemns acts of violence including 9/11, 7/7 and 7/11.”
So, should we take the press release as a sincere statement of his current position? If so, is it reasonable to ban him for views that he has apparently jettisoned if indeed he ever held them? This is not an easy case to decide. Perhaps allowing him to speak in Britain while monitoring closely the content of his oratory will in the end be the least worst option.
12 Mar 2010 | Uncategorized
The Libel Reform Campaign’s Libel Week culminates with the Big Libel Gig this Sunday, featuring Dara O’Briain, Robin Ince, Ed Byrne, Shappi Khorsandi, Tim Minchin and many more. We’ll be tweeting at #libelreform, and the Little Atoms radio show will be interviewing performers backstage for a special podcast, available next week.
On Thursday night, the campaign hosted “What You Don’t Get To See” at the Free Word Centre, an event highlighting the difficulties documentary filmmakers face because of England’s libel laws.
Among the speakers was investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, who ran a campaign against quackery in the 1980’s and 90s.
Campbell began investigating alternative health during the early day’s of Aids when, as he put it stories “filled my in-tray and broke my heart.” He investigated doctors selling unscientific remedy’s for the Big three” cancer, aids, leaukemia” Campbell’s investigations resulted in four doctors being struck off for life — two of whom were treating HIV-positive patients with Ayurvedic remedies. He repeatedly faced libel actions — including one against him personally
On Wednesday evening, Mr Juctice Eady spoke on free speech and the European Convention on Human Rights at the launch of City University’s Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism. Eady, often cast as the pantomime villain of defamation, said he felt the biggest problem with English free speech cases is the massive cost, which he felt was partly down to a culture of bravado and machismo among libel lawyers. Eady also said he was sympathetic to the idea of libel tribunals, which would save time and money.
You can read Justice Eady’s speech here
Meanwhile, this week Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky this week won a case against Russian channel RTR Planeta, which had implicated him in the death of Alexander Litvinenko. The case threw up a question: was this libel tourism? Berezovksy cleary has interests in the UK, but the broadcast was in Russian; and while available in the UK, it was not intended for this market.
15 Aug 2009 | Digital Freedom, Index Index, Middle East and North Africa, minipost
The U.S. government is covertly testing technology in China and Iran that lets residents break through screens set up by their governments to limit access to news on the Internet. The “feed over email” (FOE) system delivers news, podcasts and data via technology that evades web-screening protocols of restrictive regimes, said the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors. Read more here
