Ian Cram

Regulating the Media: Some Neglected Freedom of Expression Issues in the United Kingdom's Counter-Terrorism Strategy

ABSTRACT In the wake of the first ever Al Qaeda-inspired bombings in Britain in July 2005, there has been much discussion about the appropriate form(s) of counter-terrorism response. This article focuses on one aspect of the “war on terror” usually afforded less prominence than other counter-terrorist measures; namely a range of existing and proposed constraints on media freedom and the constitutional/human rights issues provoked. The United Kingdom is the focus because terrorism laws intended for the ethno-nationalist conflict in Northern Ireland have been replaced by legislation in 2000 and 2001 claimed to reflect the changed nature of terrorism and that arguably has serious implications for freedom of expression. Measures that would impact adversely on speech are being debated in Parliament presently, measures that go considerably further than the previous bans on the direct broadcasting of Sinn Féin representatives and their sympathisers.

Protecting free speech and academic freedom in universities.

This article interrogates restrictions on speaking events in universities created both by recent student-led efforts at ‘no-platforming’ and by Part 5 of the Counter-terrorism and Security Act 2015 which placed aspects of the government’s existing Prevent strategy on a statutory basis for the first time. The statutory Prevent duty as it applies in universities includes, under the accompanying Guidance, curbing or monitoring such events on the basis that they could have an impact in drawing persons into terrorism. This article will place the combined impact of Part 5 and student-led curbs on campus speech in context by juxtaposing a range of pre-existing restrictions with the various free speech duties of universities. Focusing on speaking events, it sets out to evaluate the results of this chequered situation in terms of the current state of free speech and academic freedom in universities. It finds potential violations of established free speech norms due to the impact of pre-emptive strikes against some campus-linked speech articulating non-mainstream viewpoints. But it also argues that not all such speech has a strong foundation within such norms.

‘The War on Terror’ Security and Expressive Freedom

This is a book about freedom of expression and counter terrorism laws in the United Kingdom. It was sparked by what was seen at the time to be a largely incidental aspect of the Blair Governments wider response to the terrorist outrages of September 11, 2001 and the London Bus and Tube bombings of July 7, 2005 (and the unsuccessful subsequent attempts of July 21, 2005) – namely the set of restraints in Sections 1 & 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 upon communications that indirectly encouraged terrorism. Other controversial measures in the ‘war on terror’ such as indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, control orders, extensions of period of detention prior to charge, limits on the right of persons subject to control orders to learn in judicial proceedings of the basis of the case against them, have justly attracted considerable critical attention

The Protection of Dissent in International Human Rights Law

This chapter is concerned with the treatment in international law of claims to freedom of expression and association in the context of ‘the war on terror.’ Where international law is relevant to the construction of domestic legal norms it offers the prospect of a check upon the liberty-encroaching tendencies of gov-ernments. In those constitutional settings where automatic overriding status is conferred upon it, the powerful transformative potential of international human rights law is obvious.

Incitement and Glorification of Terrorism

The US First Amendment scholar Vincent Blasi defined pathological periods as occurring intermittently and marked by ‘the existence of certain dynamics that radically increase the likelihood that people who hold unorthodox views will be punished for what they say or believe.

The Regulation of Political Association and Possession of Documents Under Domestic Counter-Terrorist Laws

In the previous chapter I argued that international law offered at best an equivocal measure of protection on unpopular expression and minority associations. The indeterminacy of international legal norms in general and the failure of the international community to agree upon a comprehensive definition of terrorism have meant that national legal systems remain centre stage in the articulation, enforcement and policing of counter-terrorist strategies.