Look at the bright side when it comes to Libya, Ed Schultz said yesterday, “we haven't invaded anybody.” Come to think of it, we have, Schultz quickly spun — and I'm gung ho for the invasion! Here is Schultz on his radio show Monday doing a pirouette worthy of Nureyev while defending President Obama's decision to intervene in Libya ( audio ) — Keep in mind, this has been a very decisive move and a decisive process throughout all of this with President Obama. And I don't care if you like the guy or not. The fact is that he collected the facts, he worked with people, he worked with countries, he diplomatically went through the channels necessary to see this, to head towards a successful conclusion for the Libyan people, and we haven't invaded anybody, or have we? ” … and we haven't invaded anybody” — you know, like Bush did twice. Except that we have, at least according to Schultz in a Huffington Post column with a headline more revealing of his psyche than the subject at hand — “Why I Support President Obama's Decision to Invade Libya.” Schultz's column provided fodder for a NewsBusters post I wrote yesterday, and also drew criticism from the left, Schultz said — I used the word 'invade' when I did a piece on Huffington Post and that is the word, whereas I support the president. Look, we're in their airspace, OK? That is an invasion. It's a military invasion. And many of you lefties are ripping me apart on that, so fine, go right ahead! Whatever terminology you want to use. Heck, they're only words … it's not as if they mean anything . A more accurate headline for Schultz's screed — Why I Support
Continue reading …
Jury sees images of the newspaper seller lying on the ground after being struck by a police officer at the G20 protests Disturbing new footage that shows Ian Tomlinson lying motionless on the ground shortly after being struck by a policeman at the G20 protests was shown to a jury during the opening day of the inquest into his death. Members of his family wept when the footage was played, revealing previously unseen images of the 47-year-old newspaper seller lying on the ground, being tended to by a female medical student. The jury of 11, attending the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was shown footage of Tomlinson and PC Simon Harwood, the officer filmed striking him moments before his collapse on 1 April 2009. Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, told the jury that Harwood, of the Met police’s territorial support group, was not on trial. “This is an inquest, not a public inquiry. But every inquest is an inquiry into the death. That involves looking at the circumstances in which the death arose, but not all of the much broader issues which a public inquiry might consider.” Thornton said that Harwood’s shoving of Tomlinson at 7.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings was unlikely to be contested. The jury saw footage of Harwood striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him hard in the back. Tomlinson was propelled and fell to the ground. “PC Harwood accepted later that he did those things, and he gave his reasons for doing them,” Thornton said. Tomlinson then walked about 100 metres along Cornhill before collapsing. He was pronounced dead at 8.10pm. Thornton said there was likely to be “controversy” over the medical evidence. Freddy Patel, the pathologist who did the first postmortem examination, concluded that Tomlinson died of coronary heart disease. Two other pathologists, Nat Cary and Kenneth Shorrock, said he died of internal bleeding. “It is likely to be a controversial area in the inquest,” Thornton said. “There is likely to be controversy about the finding by Dr Patel in the first postmortem about the presence of fluid in the abdomen and the extent it contained blood.” The jury was shown footage compiled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including video from CCTV cameras, bystanders and police helicopters. It included images obtained from trawling websites such as YouTube and was shown in two batches. The first batch showed Tomlinson at Monument tube station just before 7pm. He was repeatedly turned away from police cordons blocking his route home, before he appeared, at about 7.20pm, on Royal Exchange Buildings. He collapsed on the pavement at Cornhill about three minutes later. Lucy Apps, a medical student, went to his aid. Video showed riot officers arriving on the scene and moving her away. There was no evidence that protesters impeded police medics from treating Tomlinson, who was carried away by police minutes later. The second film batch followed Harwood. Fifteen minutes before he struck Tomlinson he tried to arrest a protester, dragging him into the crowd by his jacket. Harwood could have had confrontations with at least two other people in the minutes before his encounter with Tomlinson. Among the witnesses giving evidence at the hearing was Barry Smith, an Evening Standard seller, who had worked with Tomlinson for more than 20 years. He said Tomlinson had left the stall earlier than usual that day because they had run out of newspapers. Tomlinson’s widow, Julia Tomlinson, and his stepson, Paul King, also gave evidence at the inquest. Both described a loving father generous with his time and money, who was “idolised” by his four daughters and five stepchildren. Both also spoke of Tomlinson’s problem with alcoholism. Julia said: “He would always walk with his hands in his pockets and his head down, even from the living room to the kitchen. This was partly because he had a limited use of one of his hands from an old injury. But I think this was also because he didn’t like to impose himself – he didn’t want no bother.” Ian Tomlinson Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Jury sees images of the newspaper seller lying on the ground after being struck by a police officer at the G20 protests Disturbing new footage that shows Ian Tomlinson lying motionless on the ground shortly after being struck by a policeman at the G20 protests was shown to a jury during the opening day of the inquest into his death. Members of his family wept when the footage was played, revealing previously unseen images of the 47-year-old newspaper seller lying on the ground, being tended to by a female medical student. The jury of 11, attending the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was shown footage of Tomlinson and PC Simon Harwood, the officer filmed striking him moments before his collapse on 1 April 2009. Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, told the jury that Harwood, of the Met police’s territorial support group, was not on trial. “This is an inquest, not a public inquiry. But every inquest is an inquiry into the death. That involves looking at the circumstances in which the death arose, but not all of the much broader issues which a public inquiry might consider.” Thornton said that Harwood’s shoving of Tomlinson at 7.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings was unlikely to be contested. The jury saw footage of Harwood striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him hard in the back. Tomlinson was propelled and fell to the ground. “PC Harwood accepted later that he did those things, and he gave his reasons for doing them,” Thornton said. Tomlinson then walked about 100 metres along Cornhill before collapsing. He was pronounced dead at 8.10pm. Thornton said there was likely to be “controversy” over the medical evidence. Freddy Patel, the pathologist who did the first postmortem examination, concluded that Tomlinson died of coronary heart disease. Two other pathologists, Nat Cary and Kenneth Shorrock, said he died of internal bleeding. “It is likely to be a controversial area in the inquest,” Thornton said. “There is likely to be controversy about the finding by Dr Patel in the first postmortem about the presence of fluid in the abdomen and the extent it contained blood.” The jury was shown footage compiled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including video from CCTV cameras, bystanders and police helicopters. It included images obtained from trawling websites such as YouTube and was shown in two batches. The first batch showed Tomlinson at Monument tube station just before 7pm. He was repeatedly turned away from police cordons blocking his route home, before he appeared, at about 7.20pm, on Royal Exchange Buildings. He collapsed on the pavement at Cornhill about three minutes later. Lucy Apps, a medical student, went to his aid. Video showed riot officers arriving on the scene and moving her away. There was no evidence that protesters impeded police medics from treating Tomlinson, who was carried away by police minutes later. The second film batch followed Harwood. Fifteen minutes before he struck Tomlinson he tried to arrest a protester, dragging him into the crowd by his jacket. Harwood could have had confrontations with at least two other people in the minutes before his encounter with Tomlinson. Among the witnesses giving evidence at the hearing was Barry Smith, an Evening Standard seller, who had worked with Tomlinson for more than 20 years. He said Tomlinson had left the stall earlier than usual that day because they had run out of newspapers. Tomlinson’s widow, Julia Tomlinson, and his stepson, Paul King, also gave evidence at the inquest. Both described a loving father generous with his time and money, who was “idolised” by his four daughters and five stepchildren. Both also spoke of Tomlinson’s problem with alcoholism. Julia said: “He would always walk with his hands in his pockets and his head down, even from the living room to the kitchen. This was partly because he had a limited use of one of his hands from an old injury. But I think this was also because he didn’t like to impose himself – he didn’t want no bother.” Ian Tomlinson Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Jury sees images of the newspaper seller lying on the ground after being struck by a police officer at the G20 protests Disturbing new footage that shows Ian Tomlinson lying motionless on the ground shortly after being struck by a policeman at the G20 protests was shown to a jury during the opening day of the inquest into his death. Members of his family wept when the footage was played, revealing previously unseen images of the 47-year-old newspaper seller lying on the ground, being tended to by a female medical student. The jury of 11, attending the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was shown footage of Tomlinson and PC Simon Harwood, the officer filmed striking him moments before his collapse on 1 April 2009. Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, told the jury that Harwood, of the Met police’s territorial support group, was not on trial. “This is an inquest, not a public inquiry. But every inquest is an inquiry into the death. That involves looking at the circumstances in which the death arose, but not all of the much broader issues which a public inquiry might consider.” Thornton said that Harwood’s shoving of Tomlinson at 7.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings was unlikely to be contested. The jury saw footage of Harwood striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him hard in the back. Tomlinson was propelled and fell to the ground. “PC Harwood accepted later that he did those things, and he gave his reasons for doing them,” Thornton said. Tomlinson then walked about 100 metres along Cornhill before collapsing. He was pronounced dead at 8.10pm. Thornton said there was likely to be “controversy” over the medical evidence. Freddy Patel, the pathologist who did the first postmortem examination, concluded that Tomlinson died of coronary heart disease. Two other pathologists, Nat Cary and Kenneth Shorrock, said he died of internal bleeding. “It is likely to be a controversial area in the inquest,” Thornton said. “There is likely to be controversy about the finding by Dr Patel in the first postmortem about the presence of fluid in the abdomen and the extent it contained blood.” The jury was shown footage compiled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including video from CCTV cameras, bystanders and police helicopters. It included images obtained from trawling websites such as YouTube and was shown in two batches. The first batch showed Tomlinson at Monument tube station just before 7pm. He was repeatedly turned away from police cordons blocking his route home, before he appeared, at about 7.20pm, on Royal Exchange Buildings. He collapsed on the pavement at Cornhill about three minutes later. Lucy Apps, a medical student, went to his aid. Video showed riot officers arriving on the scene and moving her away. There was no evidence that protesters impeded police medics from treating Tomlinson, who was carried away by police minutes later. The second film batch followed Harwood. Fifteen minutes before he struck Tomlinson he tried to arrest a protester, dragging him into the crowd by his jacket. Harwood could have had confrontations with at least two other people in the minutes before his encounter with Tomlinson. Among the witnesses giving evidence at the hearing was Barry Smith, an Evening Standard seller, who had worked with Tomlinson for more than 20 years. He said Tomlinson had left the stall earlier than usual that day because they had run out of newspapers. Tomlinson’s widow, Julia Tomlinson, and his stepson, Paul King, also gave evidence at the inquest. Both described a loving father generous with his time and money, who was “idolised” by his four daughters and five stepchildren. Both also spoke of Tomlinson’s problem with alcoholism. Julia said: “He would always walk with his hands in his pockets and his head down, even from the living room to the kitchen. This was partly because he had a limited use of one of his hands from an old injury. But I think this was also because he didn’t like to impose himself – he didn’t want no bother.” Ian Tomlinson Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Brokaw Feels for Obama: No President in ‘My Adult Lifetime’ Has Had to Face So Many Problems
March 29, 2011 No Comment
Tom Brokaw appeared on Tuesday's Today show to offer his analysis of Barack Obama's Libya policy, as well as his empathy for a president who has experienced more “unexpected circumstances” than any Oval Office occupant has seen in his “adult lifetime.” Today co-host Matt Lauer prompted the former NBC Nightly News anchor to tell the audience what he told him right before going on air – that he couldn't “recall a time where a president has faced a confluence of events, like the confluence of events taking place right now.” Brokaw, who did qualify his response noting that FDR did have his share of “challenges,” went on to specify that from the Libya crisis, to the disaster in Japan, to the budget fight he's never seen a president have it so bad, as seen in the following March 29 Today show exchange: MATT LAUER: You mentioned something to me when you first walked in the studio this morning. You said that you haven't, in your memory, you can't recall a time where a president has faced a confluence of events, like the confluence of events taking place right now. Just explain that. TOM BROKAW: Well in my adult lifetime. Certainly FDR did have these challenges. But in my adult lifetime and as a reporter, here you have a president who has two wars underway, is engaged in really what is a third war. The world's third largest economy, Japan, has been gravely wounded by a tsunami and an earthquake – now has a nuclear meltdown. One of the principle members of the President's national security team said to me last night, “I'm more worried about that, than I am about Libya.” And then we have, here at home, a recession that we cannot completely get out of yet. And political paralysis in Washington over the budget. All of that has arrived at, at the Oval Office, at the same time. Now when presidents get elected, that's their job. Is to take on the big, the big assignments, the big challenges. But there have been few that have come as swiftly as all of these have from unexpected circumstances. LAUER: Tom Brokaw, Tom always good to have you here and lend your perspective. I appreciate it. BROKAW: Great, my pleasure Matt.
Continue reading …Brokaw Feels for Obama: No President in ‘My Adult Lifetime’ Has Had to Face So Many Problems
March 29, 2011 No CommentTom Brokaw appeared on Tuesday's Today show to offer his analysis of Barack Obama's Libya policy, as well as his empathy for a president who has experienced more “unexpected circumstances” than any Oval Office occupant has seen in his “adult lifetime.” Today co-host Matt Lauer prompted the former NBC Nightly News anchor to tell the audience what he told him right before going on air – that he couldn't “recall a time where a president has faced a confluence of events, like the confluence of events taking place right now.” Brokaw, who did qualify his response noting that FDR did have his share of “challenges,” went on to specify that from the Libya crisis, to the disaster in Japan, to the budget fight he's never seen a president have it so bad, as seen in the following March 29 Today show exchange: MATT LAUER: You mentioned something to me when you first walked in the studio this morning. You said that you haven't, in your memory, you can't recall a time where a president has faced a confluence of events, like the confluence of events taking place right now. Just explain that. TOM BROKAW: Well in my adult lifetime. Certainly FDR did have these challenges. But in my adult lifetime and as a reporter, here you have a president who has two wars underway, is engaged in really what is a third war. The world's third largest economy, Japan, has been gravely wounded by a tsunami and an earthquake – now has a nuclear meltdown. One of the principle members of the President's national security team said to me last night, “I'm more worried about that, than I am about Libya.” And then we have, here at home, a recession that we cannot completely get out of yet. And political paralysis in Washington over the budget. All of that has arrived at, at the Oval Office, at the same time. Now when presidents get elected, that's their job. Is to take on the big, the big assignments, the big challenges. But there have been few that have come as swiftly as all of these have from unexpected circumstances. LAUER: Tom Brokaw, Tom always good to have you here and lend your perspective. I appreciate it. BROKAW: Great, my pleasure Matt.
Continue reading …Donald Trump’s Birtherism: Beyond stupidity and gullibility, now he’s just lying
March 29, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Donald Trump was interviewed by phone by Greta Van Susteren yesterday and doubled down yet again on his Birtherism : TRUMP: What does this have to do with race? This has absolutely nothing to do with race. The fact is that if you look at what’s happened with respect to this birth certificate issue, he doesn’t have it, he’s spent millions of dollars on lawyers trying to get out of the issue, they give what’s called a certificate of live birth, which doesn’t even have a signature on it — and anybody can get a certificate of live birth — it’s nothing to do with a birth certificate. And they are really reeling! Now, they talk all sorts of things. You don’t have a doctor or a nurse — this is the president of the United States, and no doctor, no nurse, nobody’s come forward saying, ‘I delivered that beautiful baby.’ There’s so many things! Even if you look at the newspaper, the so-called newspaper article in Hawaii — that was days after he was born! So, that wasn’t like when he was born! And if you really think about a couple of things — whoever took a newspaper advertisement — now these were poor people. These aren’t rich people. Whoever took a newspaper advertisement to announce the birth of your baby? Now, I don’t think you know of anybody, and I know of nobody — and I know poor people and rich people, but I’ve never heard of taking a newspaper ad to advertise that you have a baby. All Trump is really doing is proving his stupidity and gullibility — not exactly desirable qualities in a president. At the very least, he’s demonstrating how clueless and out of touch a rich guy he really is. Here’s the newspaper birth announcement in question: enlarge This is from FactCheck.org, which explains that a pro-Hillary/anti-Obama blogger first dug this up from the Honolulu Advertiser’s archives of Sunday, Aug. 31, 1961. This isn’t an advertisement — rather, this is a standard newspaper birth announcement. You see, in the old days, before large corporations took over newspapers and forced them to gradually eviscerate their newsgathering functions, newspapers sent out their cops-and-courts reporters about once a week to collect all the previous week’s birth listings from local hospitals. (This practice has long since fallen by numerous newsroom-budget-cutting waysides.) In other words, the Advertiser announcement was collected by the paper itself and stands as independent corroboration that Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital. The fact that Trump doesn’t know of anyone who has their birth listed in the paper by anything other than an ad indicates how out of touch this rich man really is. And while we’re mentioning the young couple’s poverty … does Trump really believe that both Barack Obama Sr. and a very pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham-Obama were able to make what was in 1961 a long and difficult and expensive journey to Kenya for young Barack’s birth, and then return in time for Barack Sr. to resume his fall classes in Hawaii? As for why no doctor has turned up claiming to have overseen Obama’s birth, well, that would be because he is dead. The doctor in question was Dr. Rodney T. West, a since-deceased obstetrician who told his friends about Obama’s birth at the time in a memorable fashion — memorable enough that they wrote it down, like his friend Barbara Nelson: “I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls. His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.” The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama. “I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection. She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name. “I remember Dr. West saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson, who grew up in Kenmore and went to Hawaii in 1959 to be in Jo-Anne’s wedding party. When Nelson was offered a job as a newspaper reporter and photographer at her friend’s wedding reception, it led to her living in Hawaii for 47 years. She returned to Kenmore in 2006. As for the “Certificate of Live Birth” Obama has presented since 2008, Trump is simply lying when he claims that “anybody can get” one; the state of Hawaii, in fact, only hands them out to people it can certify were born there. (The lack of a signature is utterly insignificant; many — in fact, most — states feature no signatures on their birth certificates.) As we explained to Sean Hannity : 3. This birth certificate is the same birth certificate anyone born in Hawaii would present as proof of citizenship. “Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations,” Okubo said. “With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver’s license.” 4. The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu. “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.” The continued dispute that Hannity and Trump seem to think is so significant is so important, in fact, is over the privacy-protected medical records of Obama’s birth — what the Birthers are calling his “long form birth certificate,” but are in fact the private medical records of his birth kept at the hospital, containing large amounts of personal medical information about Obama’s mother, including gynecological data. And as Hawaii officials have explained numerous times, these records are protected by privacy laws, and for perfectly sound reasons: Hawai’i’s disclosure law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record … ” The law further states that the Health Department “shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.” Those who have “direct and tangible interest” are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person’s vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law. This, ultimately, is where we get into the question of race. As we already asked of Trump: Is a birth certificate acceptable to every known authority for every other citizen of that state somehow unacceptable proof of citizenship for presidential candidates? Or do they believe that every candidate for president should have to release for public review the private medical records, including personal medical information about their late mothers, of their own births? Once again: If the answer to either of these is “no,” then why are they demanding it only of Barack Obama — while simultaneously talking about his five years spent in Indonesia? Because that’s when it becomes obvious that the problem isn’t where Obama was born. It’s his racial heritage. And the utter mendaciousness of the attack — not to mention the fact that Fox is blithely providing trump a platform for this nonsense — reeks of a Swift Boat attack to me. That may be why we’re seeing this.
Continue reading …