A Right to Offend: Free Expression in the Twenty-first Century

by Brian Winston

Overview

Over the past two decades, there have been a series of events that have brought into question the concept and practice of free expression.

In this new book, Winston provides an account of the current state of freedom of expression in the western world. He analyses all the most pertinent cases of conflict during the last two decades - including the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the incident of the Danish cartoons and offended celebrities - examining cultural, legal and journalistic aspects of each case.

A Right to Offend offers us a deeper understanding of the increasingly threatening environment in which free speech operates and is defended, as well as how it informs and is central to journalism practice and media freedom more generally. It is important reading for all those interested in freedom of expression in the twenty-first century.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781849660150
Publisher:	Bloomsbury Academic
Publication date:	06/05/2012
Pages:	432
Product dimensions:	6.40(w) x 9.30(h) x 1.50(d)

About the Author

Brian Winston is Professor of Communications and Lincoln Chair at the University of Lincoln, UK. He has held senior academic posts at UK National Film and Television School, New York University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Wales (Cardiff), Westminster University and the University of Lincoln where, before his present position, he was a Pro-Vice Chancellor.

Table of Contents

Assumptions xiii

Part 1 Prosecution 1

1 The Shadow of the Fatwa 3

2 The Treason of the Clerks 14

3 The Abuses of 'Hackgate' 19

Part 2 Defence 33

Section 1 Histories - To Dispel the Shadow of the Fatwa 35

4 Actiones: Cases 36

4.1 Defence of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther (1521): For a right of conscience and a right to publish 36

4.2 The Master &'Wardens of the Company of Stationers v. Mr John Milton (1644): For an unlicensed press 45

4.3 R. v. mikes (1774): For libel trial by jury 57

4.4 The Case of Brass Crosby, esq. Lord Mayor of London on a Commitment by the House of Commons (1771): For the reporting of Parliament 65

4.5 R. v. Hetherington (1841): For the end of press taxation 68

5 Consensu: Agreed 80

5.1 The King v. John Peter Zenger (1735): Press freedom in the United States 80

5.2 R. v. Joseph Howe, Darling v. Hall, The Crown Colony of New Zealand v. Quaife (1835-1840): A pattern 92

5.3 New York Herald v. New York Sun (1835-1924): Mass circulation 95

5.4 La Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberte de la presse (1881): Press freedom in the West 99

6 Non Sequitur: It Doesn't Follow 115

6.1 Ernst von Wolzogen v. the Censors (1901): Censoring theatre 115

6.2 Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio Industrial Commission (1915): Censoring cinema 124

7 Ex Concessis: Consequentially 132

7.1 'Improvement in Telegraphy', US Letters Patent No. 174,465 (1867): Electrifying communication, designing out freedom 132

7.2 Samuel 'Roxy' Rothafel v. American Telephone & Telegraph (1923): American radio 138

7.3 The British Broadcasting Corporation v. Mr George Formby (1937): Britain's 'third way' 155

7.4 The BBC v. Lord Beveridge (1942): The limits of radio freedom 169

8 Et Cetera: And So On 184

8.1 The Baird Television Development Co. v. Electrical Mechanical Industries Co. (1936):'Inventing' television 184

8.2 In Re: The Bobo Doll (1958): The effects of television 190

8.3 Edward R. Murrow v. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (1951): The limits of television freedom 199

9 Obita Dicta: Opinion 211

9.1 Noyce v. Kilby (1969): The coming of the digital 211

9.2 Paul Baran v. AT&T (1964): Digitizing communications 217

9.3 Authors Guild Inc., Association of American Publishers Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc. (2008): Impact 225

9.4 Daily Herald v. Sun (1964): Convergence 238

9.5 Julian Assange v. the World (2010): The technicist illusion of freedom 244

Section 2 Enlightenment - To Frustrate the Treason of the Clerks 255

10 Audi Alterem Partem: Hear the Other Side 256

10.1 Sir Tom Stoppard v. Heinrich Heine (2006): In defence of free expression 256

10.2 Gray et al. v. Todorov et al. (2008): In defence of the Enlightenment 258

Section 3 Law - To Correct the Abuses of Hackgate 267

11 Rationes Decidendi: The Reasons for Decision 268

11.1 Sir Paul Stephenson et al. v. Alan Rusbridger and Paul Johnson (2010-11): Guarding the guardians 268

11.2 National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977): Gesture as speech 269

11.3 Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (1942): Speech as deed 272

11.4 United States v. One Book Called 'Ulysses' (1933): Obscenity 275

11.5 Gay News Ltd and Lemon v. United Kingdom (1982): Blasphemy 280

11.6 Attorney-General (United Kingdom) v. Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd (1988): Sedition 290

11.7 Hammond v. DPP [2004]: The limits of protected speech 295

11.8 Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd [1999]: Defamation 298

12 Causa Sine Qua Non: The Indispensible Cause 311

12.1 Campbell v. MGN Ltd [2004]: Privacy 311

12.2 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988): The 'Offence Principle' 322

12.3 Doe v. University of Michigan (1989): From 'civility' to 'hate' 328

12.4 Schenck v. United States"(1919): Proof of damage 337

12.5 Sir Ian Trethowan v. Tom Mangold (1981): Dangers of regulation 348

Conclusions 353

Notes 356

References 372

Index 399