Wikileaks and Iceland MPs Propose Journalism Haven

geegel sends word that Iceland could become a journalism haven if a proposal put forward by some Icelandic MPs, aided by Wikileaks, succeeds. Julian Assange, editor of Wikileaks, said that the idea is to "try and reform Iceland's media law to be a very attractive jurisdiction for investigative journalists." The article notes one area in which supporters of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative need to tread carefully: "...the troubles of the financial sector may lead some Icelanders to be sceptical of efforts to transform their country and [one supporter] is aware of the need not to make exaggerated claims." A British opponent of the idea (and supporter of the UK's draconian libel laws) is quoted: "The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written — and uploaded — at home."

Comments

Cool

[Jawn98685]

Get it?
No, seriously, I mean it is cool that the notion of a free press could be so powerful that an entire nation could be moved to enshrine it in law, thereby creating a beacon of truth for the rest of the world, or a thorn in their side, depending on what got posted. [sigh...] I remember when the United States was something like that.

Re:Cool

[Rogerborg]

Careful now: did you check you were in a Free Speech Zone before you wrote that?

Re:Cool

[bsDaemon]

Unified across instances per entity. Fox News is part of NewsCorp, which owns also the Wall Street Journal. I think you would be hard-pressed to find much editorial disagreement between Fox Business and the WSJ, for instance.

Also, the fact that you cite web content as a counter-point doesn't actually provide a counter-point, as I addressed that in my initial post -- the internet lowers the barrier to entry, but often times beyond a level which allows for sanity. For instance, neo-nazi groups endorsing in "their press" a candidate such as Ron Paul, which causes unintended negative press for him, plus draws attention to the existence of neo-nazi propaganda sites, both of which are then addressed in the collaborationist media and used to denounce everything from the candidate to free speech on the internet (after all, we can't have "hate speech", now can we?).

However, the fact that I can go on amazon.com and order whatever AK Press productions I want with (apparently) no interference from the man does show that we have more freedom than other countries, or at least that we're let to think that we do.

Frankly, there is really nothing like the subtle tyranny of thought in play in an Enlightenment state. As an "idea nation," one's nationality is defined as adherence to certain basic principles. Thus, if one steps out of the very narrow band of neo-liberalism that's allowed in the US then one is immediately attacked as "un-American," "anti-American," etc, where in a country such as Italy, whether one is a Fascist or a Communist is incidental to their Italian-ness, and thus I would submit that they are allowed more freedom of conscience as their opposition to the State isn't immediate grounds for their excommunication from their nationality.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Entropius]

Unfortunately, this means that the person with the bigger mouth can just shout louder than the other guy. Especially in the modern atmosphere of mass media, this means that whoever pays more can make their statements heard by everyone.

Saying patently false things about someone that you know are false *should* be a crime, IMO, even if our interpretation of the law has gone too far.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I concur. Free speech should mean exactly that. You own your mouth, and nobody else should be able to muzzle it under any circumstances (unless you are inside their house or other private domain).

So large companies can station people with bullhorns outside our restaurant to tell people the food inside is poisonous in order to drive you out of business? And The day before the election a news channel can run stories that are complete lies, including saying anything (for example McCain is dead and a vote for him is now going to elect Palin)? And so on the sly I can hire someone to call all the patients of a physician and tell them he's a child molester and rapes his patients in order to drum up business for my competing practice? After all he might hear about it eventually. Can I lie about the ingredients list on food I sell? How about crowded theaters? Is it now legal for me to scream about a fire or guy with a gun in order to start a panic and get people trampled to death?

I disagree with your assertion. Libel and slander and other laws that restrict free speech in the name of the public good are fairly necessary. They serve a purpose. We just need to be very conservative in our changes to these types of laws and in the creation of new laws.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[MrNaz]

Maybe, but the damage that can be done by lies is often irreparable. Just ask a doctor or teacher who has been accused but acquitted of sexual crimes. The reputation just cannot be repaired, no matter how comprehensive their vindication may be.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[ultranova]

That sounds good in theory and might even work for awhile, until you get yourself some future president who resembles Mao Tse Tung. Said future president will define anything he doesn't like as "false" and imprison you. For example: "The communists killed hundreds in Tianneman Square." "No we didn't. That's libel. Welcome to prison."

Mussolini, Mao... Do you have any argument that doesn't devolve into scaremongering?

You need to write your laws, not just for the present, but also so they cannot be abused by future tyrants. Libel/slander laws can and have been abused by governments to silence citizens.

A tyrant will simply rewrite/re-interpret the laws to his advantage.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[MartinSchou]

Again, that works if it's a small voice claiming it.

Now throw in a few tens of millions in advertising time, and you have absolutely no way of making that kind of voice go away.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You're implying a false dichotomy. There is a whole spectrum of positions on free speech vs. protection from defamation that do not involve either abuses by omnipotent undemocratic governments or letting anyone say anything without consequences, no matter how unfairly damaging to others it might be.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Nathrael]

Yes true, but when you demand evidence, and one of those guys cannot provide any, then it doesn't matter how loud they shout. It only makes the look like a fool, and then they will be dismissed as whackjobs (or trolls).

*coughs*Intelligent Design*coughs*

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Under what libel/slander laws today can someone legally be jailed for the kinds of comments you describe? In fact, in what jurisdictions today do libel/slander carry jail time at all? They are typically civil laws, punishable with fines.

If they were indeed "used by leaders to imprison Americans in violation of their first amendment rights" then the imprisonment wasn't really legal at all, was it? The President might as well just ask the police to go shoot someone he doesn't like and then stop the prosecution because he controls those who would conduct it. It's not legal, it's just the guy with the guns doing whatever he wants, and I'm pretty sure that falls under my comments elsewhere about having a bigger problem if the guy who's supposed to be leading your government and defending your rights has no problem abusing the system or the people.

Moreover, are you really arguing that because a particular kind of law has been abused twice by senior government figures, once nearly a century ago and once more than two centuries ago, it's a bad law? That would be a weak argument even if we were talking about a genuine enforcement of the law, which appears not to be the case here.