On the one hand:
On April 8, the 'alternative news service' Mathaba News Network sent a nasty letter to distribute it, "one of the largest and fastest growing auDA, NZ and ICANN-accredited registrars in Australia". That is, a company which provides, among other services, access to domain names. In this case, anarchobase.com. The subject of their complaint was a post on my blog, slackbastard, formerly hosted by anarchobase. The blog post in question concerned the nature of the news service, and in particular the recent history of its owner, Adam Musa King. As the post in question details, Mr King was formerly known as Louis Istvan Szondy, a name which he formally abandoned in 1990 -- according to one source -- and June 1999 -- according to another (the UK legal firm Carter Ruck).
While the exact nature of the complaint, which alleges that the post is in some way 'defamatory', is a little murky, the main complaint seems to rely upon my having republished an extract from a newspaper report, viz, an article from the October 21, 2001 edition of The Sunday Telegraph, which is reproduced in the legal judgement of Lord Justice Brook of May 18, 2004, paragraph 11.
The case presided over by Lord Justice Brook was an appeal by The Sunday Telegraph against an earlier, adverse ruling against them, brought by the firm of Carter Ruck on behalf of Mr. King: "This is an appeal by the defendants, the Telegraph Group Ltd, from certain parts of an order made by Mr Justice Eady in this libel action on 9th June 2003" (paragraph 1). To cut a long story short, Mr King/Szondy objected to the contents of the October 21, 2001 article as being defamatory.
Question: What is defamation?
Answer: Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
Carter-Ruck summarises the case as follows:
The action concerns two articles published in the Sunday Telegraph in the aftermath of the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001.
The first article was published on the front page of the issue for 21 October 2001. Although it did not identify the Claimant by name, the article suggested he was to be suspected of being an accomplice of Osama bin Laden's network of terrorists who had assisted that organisation with website activities.
The second article, which named the Claimant and was illustrated with a large photograph of him, appeared in the Sunday Telegraph of 9 December 2001. It too suggested there were good grounds to suspect him of being an accomplice and supporter of Al Qaeda. The photograph, which originally depicted his abuse at the hands of the Islamist regime in Sudan, was thus used out of context, and added to the impact of that suggestion. The article also suggested the Claimant advocated violent Islamic extremism and that he represented a threat to the Jewish community in this country.
As the Defendant now accepts, there was in fact no truth in any of those suggestions. Terrorism of any kind has always been abhorrent to the Claimant. Nor has he ever advocated or supported violence of any description or political change by anything other than peaceful, democratic means. Contrary to what was stated in the second article, the Claimant's website, Mathaba.net, is not "an internet site for Islamic extremists". Nor is his political organisation, Green Charter International, "fanatically pro-Libyan". In consequence, as may well be imagined, the Claimant found the articles extremely offensive and distressing.
What's slightly odd about Mathaba News Service's complaint is that I make it quite clear in the post to which they object that "in 2003 King (Szondy) won a libel case against The Sunday Telegraph, which accused him of being a terrorist and accomplice of al-Qaeda"; in other words, I actually acknowledged that these allegations were false, and prefaced my republication of an extract from the court document in which the article is also republished, by remarking that these were "libellous allegations". Further, as well as providing links to the court judgements in favour of Mr King, I also provided a link to an article (Newspapers falling prey to legal eagles, "No-win, no-fee cases, meant to offer access to justice, are threatening a free press", Jessica Hodgson, The Observer, September 28 2003) which provided some analysis of the case and, moreover, attendant legal issues regarding precisely these kinds of cases (no-win, no-fee deals, or conditional fee agreements (CFAs)).
Precisely how this amounts to defamation I've no idea. That said, the threat of legal action, and the possibility of being b(l)ogged down in legal muck on the part of anarchobase, was enough (among other reasons) to close down my blog... temporarily, anyway. (It will re-appear, in full, in the very near future at another address.)
This is what's known as the 'chilling effect'.
In the meantime, in a rare -- in fact, [almost!] unique -- gesture of solidarity which I deeply appreciate, Weezil @ machinegunkeyboard has republished my original blog post in full at his own blog. If anyone else would like to do the same, please feel free!
On the other hand:
Law chiefs plan ban on race-hate sites
Imre Salusinszky
The Australian
April 01, 2008
RACE-HATE websites could be banned under an internet censorship proposal being considered by state and federal attorneys-general.
The plan, which is in its early stages, has aroused concern among civil libertarians who fear it could be used to stifle political debate.
The attorneys-general, meeting in Adelaide last week, commissioned a report on the viability of authorising the Australian Communications and Media Authority to combat race-hate sites by ordering internet service providers to take them down.
At present, ACMA polices websites that breach copyright, promote terrorism or publish extreme pornography.
“There are racial vilification laws, but the problem with the internet is you can’t trace down the people,” NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said yesterday.
“Any material that incites vilification and hatred is of concern. Material on the internet is a particular concern because it provides a cheap and easy means of dissemination to a very wide audience.”
The proposal, which would be open for public consultation before any decision was made, followed a referral to the attorneys by state and federal police ministers, Mr Hatzistergos said. Concerns had also been expressed by non-English-speaking groups about comments on white-supremacist websites.
For the ACMA to be able to take down sites, it would require a new definition of the “refused classification” category used by the federal Government’s Classification Board to deal with violent pornography and similar material. The proposed system could affect websites such as the one operated by the Australia First party, which was involved in the civil unrest at Cronulla in December 2005.
An article on the group’s website, signed by “Joni”, compares Muslims to mould. “You have the innocent, healthy, cheese block sitting in your fridge minding its own business til one day you peel back the wrapper to see a tiny section of mould on the surface,” she writes.
“Just when you think it’s safe to appreciate your cheese in your own environment again you see it’s back. Now darker, deeper, growing, invading, insidious.”
But Dale Clapperton, from the online civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said a problem with banning such sites was that “it inevitably turns them into martyrs and gives more attention to the type of material you are trying to suppress”.
“The best cure for ‘bad’ speech is more speech,” Mr Clapperton said.
|