Freedom Of Speech Or Defamation Expressing Yourself On The Web

Digital communication—particularly via social networking sites—has quickly become a dominant form of interaction in our society and worldwide. The instantaneous convenience of conversation and dialog with friends down the street or strangers halfway across the globe is a wondrous technological development and one with enormous potential for relationship-strengthening, idea-sharing, and community-building. Yet the anonymity of digital communication and self-expression also provides some users with a false sense of impunity. They feel encouraged to say things they wouldn't say in a face-to-face encounter. Some of these posts can be bullying; some can involve hate speech or defamation. Readers will walk the line that separates harsh but legitimate criticism, which is protected by free speech provisions of the Constitution, from defamation and other illegal forms of expression. They also wade into these troubled waters, sort through the major legal precedents, and are provided with some invaluable guidelines to follow when expressing themselves or communicating with others via the Internet.

European Convention on Human Rights – Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. In the context of an effective democracy and respect for human rights mentioned in the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression is not only important in its own right, but it also plays a central part in the protection of other rights under the Convention. Without a broad guarantee of the right to freedom of expression protected by independent and impartial courts, there is no free country, there is no democracy. This general proposition is undeniable. This handbook is a practical tool for legal professionals from Council of Europe member states who wish to strengthen their skills in applying the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in their daily work.

This book explains exactly what personality type is needed and what sorts of physical, emotional, and psychological skills are required for a career in undercover law enforcement.

Explains what disinformation is, why and how people distort facts, the difference between fact and opinion, and how to deal with the distortion of facts in online information.

Each year, the sense of urgency to halt the growth of cyberbullying increases. As more cyberbullying cases and their consequences are brought to national attention, many states are instituting anti-bullying legislation. In addition, many people are calling for stronger legal penalties for bullying behaviors. The role of American law in protecting young people in cyberspace is explained as well as how laws related to bullying are being interpreted in court cases. Teens learn what rights they have, what powers schools possess, and what parts of the law are still in flux. Perhaps most important, they learn how to be activists rather than victims, effectively advocating for themselves and others.

From the Introduction: The days of relying on the newspaper delivery boy to deliver information to households are long over. The Internet and mobile phone technologies have changed how information is gathered and delivered in ways that can't be overstated. They have allowed people worldwide to gather, share, and access news as it's happening. The Internet and sites such as Facebook and YouTube have made it possible for anyone to reach a broad, global audience and for anyone with a computer to be a news provider. There is an enormous amount of content available online, on just about any topic. Viewers and readers must weed through this information to find sources that they trust and that they can rely on, in the same way that people read their daily paper or watch their favorite television news broadcast. The difference is the people who write for newspapers or television news are journalists-people whose job it is to research and deliver news to the public. When you go online, you find content from lots of different people, many of whom are not actual journalists, but interested citizens who want to share information with the public, much like journalists do. These non-journalists include writers of blogs and producers of independent news stories-people who are not working for official media outlets like established news channels or publications. Here, we will look at the differences between journalists and this new breed of news providers. We will discuss what professional standards journalists must follow that bloggers are not bound to, as well as what laws protect journalists but do not offer the same protection for non-journalists. Also discussed will be the roles different types of news providers serve in society, and how our definition of journalism is changing. The purpose is to help consumers of online news better understand where the news they read is coming from, what news they can trust, how to tell the difference between fact and opinion, and how to put together everything they read to form their own ideas about current events-and then perhaps even to share their ideas in their own online publications or blogs.

This consultation paper sets out the Government's proposals for reform of the law on defamation, aiming to achieve balance between protection of freedom of speech and the protection of reputation. The Government wants to ensure that the threat of libel proceedings is not used to frustrate robust scientific and academic debate, or to impede responsible investigative journalism and the valuable work undertaken by nongovernmental organisations. Issues included in the draft Bill are as follows: a new requirement that a statement must have caused substantial harm in order for it to be defamatory; a new statutory defence of responsible publication on matters of public interest; a statutory defence of truth (replacing the current common law defence of justification); a statutory defence of honest opinion (replacing the current common law defence of fair/honest comment); provisions updating and extending the circumstances in which the defences of absolute and qualified privilege are available; introduction of a single publication rule to prevent an action being brought in relation to publication of the same material by the same publisher after a one year limitation period has passed; action to address libel tourism by ensuring a court will not accept jurisdiction unless satisfied that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring an action against someone who is not domiciled in the UK or an EU Member State; removal of the presumption in favour of jury trial, so that the judge would have a discretion to order jury trial where it is in the interests of justice.