A noted expert on terrorism uncovers the clandestine and sinister ways that Islamic terrorist groups finance their global network. Dr. Ehrenfeld's investigation also details how undected billions of dollars are spent to bring about chaos and destabilization.

This consultation paper sets out the Government's proposals for reform of the law on defamation, aiming to achieve balance between protection of freedom of speech and the protection of reputation. The Government wants to ensure that the threat of libel proceedings is not used to frustrate robust scientific and academic debate, or to impede responsible investigative journalism and the valuable work undertaken by nongovernmental organisations. Issues included in the draft Bill are as follows: a new requirement that a statement must have caused substantial harm in order for it to be defamatory; a new statutory defence of responsible publication on matters of public interest; a statutory defence of truth (replacing the current common law defence of justification); a statutory defence of honest opinion (replacing the current common law defence of fair/honest comment); provisions updating and extending the circumstances in which the defences of absolute and qualified privilege are available; introduction of a single publication rule to prevent an action being brought in relation to publication of the same material by the same publisher after a one year limitation period has passed; action to address libel tourism by ensuring a court will not accept jurisdiction unless satisfied that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring an action against someone who is not domiciled in the UK or an EU Member State; removal of the presumption in favour of jury trial, so that the judge would have a discretion to order jury trial where it is in the interests of justice.

Conflicts of laws arising from injuries to rights of personality—such as defamation or invasion of privacy—have always been difficult, if only because they implicate conflicting societal values about the rights of freedom of speech and access to information, on the one hand, and protection of reputation and privacy, on the other hand. The ubiquity of the internet has dramatically increased the frequency and intensity of these conflicts. This book explores the ways in which various Western countries have addressed these conflicts, but also advances new, practical ideas about how these conflicts should be resolved. These ideas are part of an international model law unanimously adopted by a Resolution of the Institut de droit international, which addresses jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The book provides extensive article-by-article commentary, which explains the philosophy and intended operation of the Resolution.

As this publication explains, freedom of expression is not just a by-product of technical change; it must be protected by legal and regulatory measures that balance a variety of potentially conflicting values and interests in a complex global ecology of choices. The impetus that this report provides for the prioritization of research in this field encourages further scrutiny of the multifaceted issues that govern the conditions for freedom of expression on the Internet. The findings of this research point to the need to better track a wider array of global, legal and regulatory trends. It is my hope that this publication proves to be a useful and informative resource for all users working in this domain, whether individual researchers, students or policy makers.

European Convention on Human Rights – Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. In the context of an effective democracy and respect for human rights mentioned in the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression is not only important in its own right, but it also plays a central part in the protection of other rights under the Convention. Without a broad guarantee of the right to freedom of expression protected by independent and impartial courts, there is no free country, there is no democracy. This general proposition is undeniable. This handbook is a practical tool for legal professionals from Council of Europe member states who wish to strengthen their skills in applying the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in their daily work.

Freedom of expression in the age of the internet--communication without borders--is a frequent subject of debate both on a political and legal level. However, the theoretical underpinnings have generally been confined to legal and philosophical analysis. These existing theories are not entirely satisfying because they cannot explain freedom of speech beyond the individual. This book presents arguments that freedom of expression in the twenty-first century can be approached as a social phenomenon through the application of sociological theory. Existing approaches are either confined to political communication or focus on individual wellbeing. In this book, sociological arguments for freedom of expression are derived from both Emile Durkheim's classical social theory and the contemporary theories of Jurgen Habermas. Application of these theories demonstrates that freedom of speech is essential from a societal point of view. This book is the first attempt to bring sociological theory into the free speech debate. Almost always viewed as an individual right, this study, using classical sociological theory, argues that freedom of expression is essential as a group right and that without an expansive freedom of expression, modern society simply cannot efficiently operate. Viewed through the lens of sociological theory, freedom of expression is seen to be not only desirable as an individual privilege but also essential as a societal right. To validate the use of classical sociological theory, the author demonstrates that empirical evidence concerning the demise of criminal libel is predicted by Durkheim's theory and that recent archeological evidence supports the continuing vitality of classical sociology. To bring sociological theory into the twenty-first century, the contributions of contemporary German sociologist Jurgen Habermas are also employed. This modern theory also validates the classical theory. Once viewed through the lens of social theory, freedom of expression as justified by traditional legal and philosophical is explored and then the two approaches are compared. While sociology and philosophy are not at odds, they are not perfectly congruent because one focuses on societal needs while the other is based on the individual. When combined, a more comprehensive perspective can be constructed and, perhaps, a more accurate need for freedom of expression is established. This is an important and ground-breaking book for political, media, and legal studies.

Freedom of expression and defamation: where do we draw the line? Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom, one of the cornerstones of democracy in Europe, enshrined in various key texts, including the European Convention on Human Rights. But the boundaries between freedom to criticise and damaging a person’s honour or reputation are not always very clear. By defining public insults and defamation, the law can set limits on freedom of expression, which is neither absolute nor boundless. But how far can it go? This study examines the details of the European Court of Human Right’s case law on defamation. It explores a range of substantive and procedural issues that the Court has considered, and clarifies the concept of defamation, positioning it in relation to freedom of expression and public debate. It explains how overly protective defamation laws can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and public debate, and discusses the proportionality of defamation laws and their application.

When an armed force holds territory beyond the borders of its own nation, "occupation" is the term that most readily comes to mind. It may be difficult to think of a more felicitous term to describe the factual situation. But not all the broad spectrum of factual situations that we commonly think of as "occupation" fall within the limited scope of the term "occupation" as defined in international law. Not every situation we refer to as "occupation" is subject to the international legal regime that regulates occupation and imposes obligations upon the occupier.

Freedom in the World, the Freedom House flagship survey whose findings have been published annually since 1972, is the standard-setting comparative assessment of global political rights and civil liberties. The survey ratings and narrative reports on 194 countries and 14 territories are used by policymakers, the media, international corporations, civic activists, and human rights defenders to monitor trends in democracy and track improvements and setbacks in freedom worldwide. The Freedom in the World political rights and civil liberties ratings are determined through a multi-layered process of research and evaluation by a team of regional analysts and eminent scholars. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information, including foreign and domestic news reports, academic studies, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region, in conducting their research. The methodology of the survey is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these standards are applied to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.