So what did he have to say for himself?
"As a University, we have our own share of cyber-bullies and harassers. They are invariably disaffected individuals with personal grievances who hide behind anonymous blogs and e-mail pseudonyms. They are often neither students or [sic] staff. They make unverifiable claims for mass support (sometimes aided by dodgy journalism) and exaggerated claims to be speaking truth to power, or revealing corruption in the public interest."
Fair enough...
"They misuse rights of access to information through serial claims under false identities."
We presume this might relate to Freedom of Information Requests submitted under false names via the WhatDoTheyKnow website. It is not permitted under the Act to submit requests under false names, and the University were quite right to refuse these. However, there are many requests on the website which were seemingly submitted by genuine requestors, and if the University had any doubts in this regard it is permitted to request proof of identity from the claimant.
"Their postings are peppered with defamatory attacks on individuals which may be xenophobic, sexual or just downright nasty."
Oh dear... Although we hasten to point out that whilst defamation is a civil offence (very rarely a criminal offence), abuse is perfectly legitimate.
"Because these postings are always anonymous, those defamed have no easy recourse. And because of the nature of the internet, these toxic shards hang around for ever, popping up along with the victim's name as a virtual doppelganger."
Oh dear! Although this is slightly misleading since the vessel against which the University (and Hall) are currently bringing libel proceedings (the Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog) has been shut down and is inaccessible to the public.
We hasten to add that District Judge Smith read all of the accusations made against the University, its staff and Professor Hall specifically, in open court. Thus any reporting on it attracts qualified privilege and we would be quite within our rights to repeat on this blog all of the defamatory allegations made against Professor Hall. Some may care to reflect upon that.
Then come the real fireworks:
"an institution (and particularly a University) that acts to defend itself and its staff against defamation and criminal harassment will, in so acting, shut down legitimate criticism."
What's that? Criminal harassment? This being the type that attracts jail terms? Very serious stuff to allege there. Perhaps he's been spending time at the Sir Peter Scott school of law, the latter being a Vice-Chancellor who pissed away well over half a million quid of his University's money trying to bring a criminal case for harassment against a former employee, only to fail miserably.
"To use the argument of free speech to defend actions that so evidently abuse individuals, is a betrayal of the essence of the right to freedom of expression."
See above - there is no criminal or civil law prohibiting verbal abuse of one individual by another.
Whilst we sympathise with the overall thrust of Professor Hall's post, we would draw emphasis to the following:
1) There is a right of reply on this blog. Anybody is open to dispute its assertions or request material be removed or amended. We are amenable to such requests.
2) It may be expedient to call it "dodgy journalism", but material from this blog has been used in national and international publications by renowned journalists. It has filtered in to the legal, Higher Education and the general press. It has been nominated for the George Orwell Prize for Blog Writing and has proven eminently popular since its inception. It cites all the facts upon which it bases its assertions, excepting in instances where those facts may breach the anonymity of the source. It has been accepted as a work of reliable journalism with a public interest focus.
3) The University of Salford have repeatedly broken the law with respect to the Freedom of Information Act. This is not an area of discretion - they have broken the law. This has been acknowledged by the Information Commissioner in writing. It is simply not true to say that all statutory requirements with regards to the publication of information are met or exceeded. It is a statutory requirement to respond promptly to requests - one which has persistently been broken. It is a statutory requirement to provide details of a publication scheme on request - one which was broken.
4) We know that Martin Hall is personally asked to approve refusal notices for Freedom of Information requests. We also know that some of these requests the University have eventually decided (without recourse to the Information Commissioner) are perfectly valid.
5) We know that disclosure is being sought in the High Court against the Times Higher Education for personally identifying data for comments left on news articles, comments which are defamatory and are in breach of the Data Protection Act. We will leave it to the reader to consider the relevance of this to the above.
No work of serious journalism has ever committed social harm - although plenty of social harm has been committed by those who seek to stifle legitimate criticism. The balance between unsupportable fact, and comments based on identified facts, is a fine one - indeed, one on which Courts of Law do not always agree.
There have of course been allegations made against the University of Salford and its staff which a Judge has already ruled are 'arguably defamatory', and we respect that judgement. But such judgement was not levelled against UoS and we take great care to make sure any comment is supported by facts, and that the facts upon which a story is based are reliable and accurate. Most importantly, these facts are accessible to the reader.
Any dispute over this we are happy to listen to representations upon.
No comments:
Post a Comment