Comments on: Oh No! It’s Mr Justice Eady!

By: Alan Ji

Alan Ji — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:15:09 +0000

Careless @ 10 May 2009, 1:54 am

” “When my husband first got his barrister’s wig our border collie puppy attacked it. As they are very expensive to buy,”

Really? How much? What makes them expensive?”

Pardon me if I suspect restrictive practices by lawyers. Such as the exisitence of Barristers as a separate profession.

By: qidniz

qidniz — Sun, 10 May 2009 10:58:03 +0000

Quite rightly, you cannot sack judges.

Then it should not be possible to libel them. Since they are tenured for life, there is nothing about them that could be defamed in any meaningful sense, as they have no reputations that could be “damaged” in any meaningful way.

By: Someone

Someone — Sun, 10 May 2009 10:00:30 +0000

Things like symbolism and ethos are beyond the ken of Marxists, Sue. They are intangible, they have nothing to do with means of production and input and output – they are not material. Hence, their significance is ignored from the outset. The theory doesn’t allow for them, which is one of many reasons why Marxism is bollocks.

By: Sue R

Sue R — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:31:47 +0000

SPGB: It’s no mystery why lawyers and judges wear the robes they do (and they are red, not black). It is because they are a remnant of the eighteenth century, a symbol of the continuity of the law. Back then, every one (wealthy men) wore such wigs. You keep claiming to be a Marxist, but you don’t understand history.

By: LC

LC — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:10:30 +0000

My bad, I meant nonsequitur.

By: LC

LC — Sun, 10 May 2009 08:51:06 +0000

@Karl Pfeifer
No, I have not argued that freedom of expression — which is distinct from freedom of opinion — should protect this publication. Rather I argue that implying a right to reputation in ECHR Article 8, like the similar right to privacy recognized in the Von Hannover judgment sets a dangerous precedent. The European Court of Human Rights has blurred the distinction between freedom from the state and the right to stop people from talking about you. The ECHR should not´ be construed as guaranteeing a “human right” to having the government censoring the speech of other private actors. If Austria wants to provide a remedy against defamation, it’s its own municipal law, but claiming that the failure to provide a remedy against private defamation, invasion of privacy and somewhere down the road insults to religious feelings constitutes a human rights violation is slippery and afront to liberty and democracy.
The consequence of the precedent set by your case and the Van Hannover case seems to be that a contracting state would be in violation of human rights for providing too much freedom of expression, but that’s a nonsequitar. The question is therefore not whether you should by grace have a defamation remedy in Austrian law, but whether the substantive adequacy of Austrian defamation law should also give rise to a cognizable human rights complaint.
I don’t think so.

By: Karl Pfeifer

Karl Pfeifer — Sun, 10 May 2009 06:33:01 +0000

Amie and LC

A journalist who wrote a review in 1995 on the article of a teacher of political science. In 2000 the prosecutor starts procedure against this teacher because of the article. The teacher commits suicide the same year . So according to your opinion about freedom of opinion, it should be permitted to accuse this journalist, because of his article published in 1995 that he is responsible for the suicide of this teacher five years later?
Should such an accusation without any factual base be permitted?

By: LC

LC — Sun, 10 May 2009 05:35:21 +0000

@amie
Yes, the judgment in the Pfeifer case is a dangerous precedent. As I remarked in a debate with Mettaculture, implying a positive obligation to protect reputation in Article 8 might well result in the court also implying a right to respect for religious feelings in Article 9.

By: Careless

Careless — Sun, 10 May 2009 01:58:18 +0000

After a little research http://legal.edeandravenscroft.co.uk/BuyItem.aspx $800 to $3000+ there? How can they get away with that?

By: Careless

Careless — Sun, 10 May 2009 01:54:23 +0000

“When my husband first got his barrister’s wig our border collie puppy attacked it. As they are very expensive to buy,”

Really? How much? What makes them expensive?