Friday, 28 January 2011

In the interest of Fairness

Professor Hall has responded to some of the criticisms made of his Kafkaesque blog entry with the following tract of rebuttals:

"Eric states that the right to anonymity does not assume the right to defame. This is my point, which Howard misses by eliding personalised abuse with the right to challenge institutional authority. Decisions on the interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act are made by the Information Commissioner, and not on the interpretation of email comments. Decisions on the boundary between, on the one hand, hate speech, defamation and harassment and, on the other, legitimate public interest are made ultimately by the courts; one of the reasons why this issue needs to be opened up for discussion is so that generally accepted codes of practice can be developed that avoid litigation. I did not criticise the protection of sources by journalists, which is fundamental to press freedom. “Dodgy journalism” here referred to deliberate misrepresentation and abandonment of basic codes of professional practice; since Barry is a lecturer at two universities, he should know such codes of professional practice well. J. Smith casts me as a “benevolent dictator” intent on closing down freedom of speech. It is widely accepted that hate speech, bullying and intimidation close down the public sphere that is essential for freedom of speech; again, my point."

No comments:

Post a Comment