Anti-Defamation
Is Ukraine set to recriminalize defamation ?
recriminalize defamation ?
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls on Ukraine’s parliamentarians to refrain from adopting draconian legislation in the run-up to the next general election and, in particular, to reject a bill that would recriminalize defamation, making it punishable by up to three years in prison.
Ukraine’s decriminalization of defamation 17 years ago was a major democratic achievement that would be reversed by the law that three ruling party representatives proposed on 20 November.
“Recriminalizing defamation would be a disturbing step backwards, a step towards the Russian model, one that would violate Ukraine’s international obligations and democratic pledges,” said Johann Bihr, the head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk. “We urge parliamentarians to reject this bill and to refrain from any other draconian initiative.”
Why bigotry is a public health problem
public health problem
Over a decade ago, I wrote a piece for a psychiatric journal entitled “Is Bigotry a Mental Illness?” At the time, some psychiatrists were advocating making “pathological bigotry” or pathological bias – essentially, bias so extreme it interferes with daily function and reaches near-delusional proportions – an official psychiatric diagnosis. For a variety of medical and scientific reasons, I wound up opposing that position.
In brief, my reasoning was this: Some bigots suffer from mental illness, and some persons with mental illness exhibit bigotry – but that doesn’t mean that bigotry per se is an illness.
Yet in the past few weeks, in light of the hatred and bigotry the nation has witnessed, I have been reconsidering the matter. I’m still not convinced that bigotry is a discrete illness or disease, at least in the medical sense. But I do think there are good reasons to treat bigotry as a public health problem. This means that some of the approaches we take toward controlling the spread of disease may be applicable to pathological bigotry: for example, by promoting self-awareness of bigotry and its adverse health consequences.
The Online Citizen website under police investigation for criminal defamation
Online Citizen website under police investigation for criminal defamation
Socio-political website The Online Citizen (TOC) is being investigated by the police for criminal defamation after it published an article alleging that government officers are corrupt and the country’s Constitution has been doctored.
The article, published two weeks ago and titled The Take Away from Seah Kian Peng’s Facebook Post, “made serious allegations that the Government’s highest officers are corrupt and that the Constitution has been tampered with”, the police said.
In response to TODAY’s queries, the police confirmed that a report has been made against TOC and the article’s writer Willy Sum.
Rebel Wilson loses bid to keep most of the defamation payout
Rebel Wilson said she was glad she’d stood up to “a bully” despite losing her bid Friday to keep most of the record payout awarded to her in her defamation case against an Australian magazine.
The actress had sued Woman’s Day magazine last year over a series of articles in 2015 that she said had painted her as someone who’d lied about her real name, age and childhood in order to make it in Hollywood.
The Supreme Court of Victoria state awarded her an Australian-record payout of NZ$4.94 million after a jury concluded she’d missed out on film roles because of the articles. Wilson had sought NZ$7.27 million in damages.
But this June the amount was reduced by 90 per cent after the magazine’s publishers, Bauer Media, appealed. Victoria’s Court of Appeal said Wilson could not prove economic loss, or that she’d missed out on film contracts as a result of the articles. The court ordered the actress to pay back almost NZ$4.36m), and 80 percent of Bauer’s legal costs.
“In our opinion there are insufficient prospects that an appeal will succeed,” Justice Virginia Bell said at the court in the national capital, Canberra.
The magazine publisher welcomed the decision. “Bauer Media is invested in its Australian business now more than ever,” Bauer chief executive Paul Dykzeul said in a statement. “Our audience trust our content and our writers and they love our iconic brands like Woman’s Day and Australian Women’s Weekly.”
Wilson, who sat in the front row of the public gallery during the brief hearing, said outside the court she was glad the process had been brought to an end.
“This has been a long fight and a long journey in the courts, but the great thing about today is that it brings it to a definitive end,” she told reporters.
“The whole reason for bringing this case is that I wanted to stand up to a bully, which is Bauer Media.”
Wilson said she was proud of herself for “seeing it out right to the bitter end,” and that she was glad the initial jury had “restored my reputation”.
“Today was just about a small point of special damages and for me it was never about the money, it was about standing up to a bully and I’ve done that.”
#MeToo: Lawyers Say Defamation Cases Being Used To Intimidate Survivors
Defamation Cases Being Used To Intimidate Survivors
Sometime around October this year, 27-year-old Nidhi Khanna, who is in her fifth year of law practice, came across a #MeToo allegation that left her appalled.
“A woman tweeted that she was sexually harassed as she was forced to give a blowjob to a man.
But, what happened to her was rape,” the lawyer who specialises in civil and rights based cases shares.
Khanna feels several women calling out their abusers are unaware of the legal parameters and how they can seek redressal.
India’s MeToo movement gained significant ground on social media in mid-September 2018 after actor Tanushree Dutta spoke up against co-actor Nana Patekar.
The unprecedented outpouring of anger and solidarity took many forms, with many women taking to social media to name and shame perpetrators.
Taking the cause to its legal end, over 80 lawyers from across the country volunteered on Twitter to provide pro bono legal advice to survivors.
Subsequently, a directory in the form of an excel sheet with their contact details was created by Mumbai-based lawyer Rutuja Shinde and shared on multiple social media platforms.
When #metoo meets defamation law, and a brutal political culture
It is no coincidence that as the #metoo movement ricochets around the world, in Australia we find ourselves at the centre of a four-way collision between a cultural change on respect for women, a global surge of female anger, our stringent defamation laws, and a brutal political culture.
The Joyce, Rush and Foley cases all involve allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct against powerful men, made by women who did not want those allegations made public.
In the Joyce case the complainant wanted her report to be dealt with in-house by the National Party.
In the Foley case, the alleged victim of his sexual harassment did not even make a complaint.
Such was her fear and/or her discretion, she even urged a male witness to the alleged incident to stay silent, too.
The institution to which Foley belongs – the NSW Labor party – knew of the allegations, at least in general terms, but felt no need to proactively investigate them, relying on the assurances of the man at the centre of them.
The result is that alleged victims have been thrust reluctantly into defending the truth of the claims they never wanted made public.
The toll on all three women has been serious, and many believe, unjust.
What happens when the free-speech values of the #metoo movement meet the straitjacket of our defamation laws?
“Our defamation laws favour the plaintiff,” says Barbara McDonald, a professor of law at the University of Sydney.
“It is very easy to defame someone. It is very easy to say something that makes other people think less of someone.
“The onus is then shifted to the defendant to defend that claim. Not only do you have to defend literally what you said, you also have to defend the imputation that the ordinary reader would draw from what you said.”
It is very different to the American situation, where there is a First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.
Modern America likes to hail diversity in higher education as a virtue. So much so that the admissions offices of elite universities habitually invoke it to justify treating different applicants differently on the basis of race.
Rather than accepting the value of diversity on faith, Americans should ask what exactly is so great about diversity that it can be trotted out to defend actions that are normally legally suspect and morally indefensible.
The ongoing litigation against Harvard University for alleged discrimination against Asian-American applicants reminds us of the importance of such an inquiry.
The third and final week of oral arguments is currently taking place at a Boston federal courthouse in the case brought against Harvard by Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group representing a coalition of Asian-American parents and students. Harvard’s Dean of Admissions William Fitzsimmons has testified , “One of the best things about going to any college, including Harvard . . . is the opportunity to learn from fellow classmates.” Diversity supposedly facilitates that learning experience.
But diversity is just a euphemism. To pursue it, Harvard welcomes some students and not others because of race. As the university itself recognizes, eliminating the consideration of race “would reduce the population of students who self-identify as African-American, Hispanic, or ‘Other’…by nearly 50%.”
Yet eliminating the consideration of race would also significantly increase the population of another group: Asian Americans. While the percentage of Asian enrollees of an entering class at Harvard currently hovers around 20 percent, it would be over 40 percent if applicants were evaluated on academic credentials alone, rather than on criteria including race and other factors subject to racial bias such as personality.
Harvard is not at all embarrassed or ashamed of the grave cost it has imposed on Asian Americans and invokes Supreme Court precedent as legal cover. After all, the Court has held repeatedly that “the attainment of a diverse student body” provides “educational benefits” and is a compelling government interest that could justify racial classifications…
It’s more important than ever to teach kids how to stop a bully
bully
With public displays of hate on the rise, it is more important than ever for schools to commit to programs that clearly define expectations in behavior for all members of the community.
Whether you are a student, educator or family member, you have a role to play in combating bias and bullying as a means to stop the escalation of hate.
At the Anti-Defamation League, we are actively taking measures to change this narrative because we believe bullying is preventable and ultimately end-able.
Through our anti-bias, anti-bullying program, both students and teachers learn how to recognize bullying at school.
Confront bullying behavior and become allies to those who are being bullied.
We know that hate is on the rise. Just last year ADL measured a 57 percent increase in anti-Semitism in the United States.
In our own community we’ve seen increased white nationalism on our college campuses.
Our K-12 schools are microcosms of our greater community, and we know that these spikes are also happening on their campuses.
Former Quinn group sues one of its managers for defamation
Former Quinn group sues one of its managers for defamation
Quinn Industrial Holdings (QIH) has stepped up its pursuit of those whom it accuses of defaming it online. By filing legal action against one of its own senior managers and his wife. One of the most vociferous public supporters of former owner Seán Quinn.
The company filed the High Court actions on Monday against Co Leitrimwoman Patricia Gilheany and her husband, Gearoid Gilheany.
Who is the transport manager of Quinn Building Products, QIH’s trading name.
It is understood that the case against Mr Gilheany has arisen from a separate.
Earlier case against Facebook. When QIH took action to try and force the social networking site; to reveal the identities of people who had anonymously posted online comments about the company and its top executives.
The defamation action against the Gilheanys comes just days after QIH launched a similar legal action against Fermanagh farmer Enda Corrigan.
QIH,
which has been criticised by Mr Quinn, who wants to regain control of his former empire.
Recently complained of a resurgence of negativity and misinformation against the company online.
It has also warned staff of a resumption of false allegations and intimidation against its executives by anonymous people.
Those people are purporting to be acting in support of Mr Quinn, who has previously denounced any intimidation.
The action against the Gilheanys was filed on Monday by QIH and its chief executive.
One-time Quinn confidante Liam McCaffrey, its chief operating officer, Kevin Lunney, and its financial director, Dara O’Reilly.
Patricia Gilheany has been a staunch public defender of Mr Quinn’s for the last seven years, as he battled to keep his various businesses together before the recession and bankruptcy swamped him.
He later rejoined QIH, which is now backed by US hedge funds, as a consultant but fell out with the new regime and left again.
Mr Quinn last month spoke at a public rally, where he vowed to regain control of the entity, claiming he was the best person to run QIH.
Nevis Premier Mark Brantley, an attorney by profession, used his feature address at the recently held Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Bar Association’s Gala.
For the 15th Regional Law Conference to highlight the pervasive issue of cyber-bullying by persons hiding behind anonymous social media profiles.
The disturbing trend has been a hot topic in St. Kitts and Nevis of late where certain Facebook profiles bearing fake names.
Whose handlers appear to be supportive of the government, have popped up unleashing malicious character assassinations on public officials, media practitioners, and other members of civil society.
During his address, Premier Brantley quoted a US Psychologist. “People are more likely to write horrible things when they think they’re being anonymous.”
The premier said “This sentiment clarifies precisely why social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram, Tumblr and Twitter.
Also Read: Internet Marketing Company Files $3.5M Defamation Lawsuit Against Rival
With the plethora of ways they allow anonymity to be achieved,. are ideal breeding grounds for cyber bullies and are being employed to flagrantly disregard values like kindness and a firm rejection of promulgating hatred for others.”
He said these acts of cyber terrorism are demonstrative of how technology is being abused.
Adding that what is worse is that the deficit of kindness unveiled via the internet. is not just being perpetrated by strangers with devious intentions targeting others for their own amusement.
Mr. Brantley said “Beyond cyber-bullying and revenge, pornography with their common denominator of personal attacks.
The tech revolution is also a catalyst for the degradation of the core values of civil society from a political perspective. As a politician.
I am all too aware of how technology has expanded the reach of those who wish to disseminate false information, or “fake news” to further their political agenda.”