Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Freedom of Expression - HOL Judgement Belfast

  • 25-04-2007 11:23pm
    #1
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070425/belfast-1.htm

    Belfast City Council (Appellants) v. Miss Behavin' Limited (Respondents) (Northern Ireland)

    Does not violate Article 10 of the ECHR. Weird. Lord Hoffman's judgement para 1. is worth a gander, if for no other reason than to see just where the minds of appelate judges are.


Comments

  • #2
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    I haven't had a chance to read the full judgment, but it seems to be along the lines of the regulation of freedom of speech is proportionate and necessary to the aim of running a democratic society. It is very much an indirect interference with the right - prohibiting a pirate radio station, for instance, may be a different situation.

    Lord Hoffmann: "The right to vend pornography is not the most important right of free expression in a democratic society and the licensing system does not prohibit anyone from exercising it. It only prevents him from using unlicensed premises for that purpose. Even if the Council considered that it was not appropriate to have a sex shop anywhere in Belfast, that would only have put its citizens in the same position as most of the rest of the country, in having to satisfy their demand for such products by internet or mail order or going to more liberally governed districts like Soho."

    But one thing that I would like to suggest at this stage is, would there be any interest in setting up a sub-forum where people who come across recent and/or foreign judgments like this that might be interesting to others could post links and/or brief casenotes?

    It would certainly make keeping up to date that much easier...


  • #3
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,494 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Tom Young wrote:
    Does not violate Article 10 of the ECHR. Weird. Lord Hoffman's judgement para 1. is worth a gander, if for no other reason than to see just where the minds of appelate judges are.
    Rather, it explains the minds of the House of Commons (no mention of the Lords*) as details in paragraph 2.


    * The Lords knows nothing of such matters, although their butlers might.


  • #4
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    johnnyskeleton wrote:
    But one thing that I would like to suggest at this stage is, would there be any interest in setting up a sub-forum where people who come across recent and/or foreign judgments like this that might be interesting to others could post links and/or brief casenotes?

    It would certainly make keeping up to date that much easier...

    Yep, I'd agree and like that, see a most interesting one from EHCR last week, Copland v. UK. http://www.thegovernmentsays.com/cache/90069.html


Advertisement