The book has been banned again in PORTUGAL, what about the internet access?

[OxfordBloo]

Possibly, but I'm not too sure about that. The legal arguments used may simply have been different. Freedom of expression still carries responsibilities whoever you are. And publications intended to inform the public have a duty to make a reasonable effort to ensure that their "facts" correspond to the truth and to amend factual information as it emerges.

Under the penal code, defences to "difamação" (an offence to one's honour or consideration) are the pursuit of a legitimate interest (defined somewhere or other) and the ability to prove the truthfulness or to have a justified belief, born in good faith, in the truthfulness of the facts in question.

Would consciously cherry-picking from the files be considered to be "in good faith"? Can the selected facts be proven, or justifiably believed to be true? Does casting aspersions based solely on cherry-picked facts, when other available information invalidates them a demonstration of "good faith"?

There is clearly a grey area, I'd agree, but I'm not sure that the mere fact of being a private citizen offers "carte blanche" immunity from potential prosecution.

For instance, one could cite until the cows come home that it is a "fact" that Eddie reacted to the boot, and substantiate it by the fact that TdeA said so in his interim report. TdeA did state that - that is a fact. But the truth is that Eddie didn't react to the boot - TdeA got it wrong, and that the evidence that Eddie didn't is readily accessible.

Is repeating the so-called find of a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA in the boot, by citing Brunt et al., (who did indeed state that at one point) justifiable in terms of good faith when the subsequent readily accessible forensic reports state otherwise?

G-unit is entirely correct. What Amaral said is protected speech for ordinary citizens as found by the previous SC ruling.

Amaral is simply at civil fault for abusing his position which makes it actionable.

[Mr Gray]

G-unit is entirely correct. What Amaral said is protected speech for ordinary citizens as found by the previous SC ruling.

Amaral is simply at civil fault for abusing his position which makes it actionable.

I would like to see  where in the SC ruling libel was decided....surely Portuguese law is at odds with the European Court..could the McCanns...if amaral had won the case..... have appealed to the European Court on the basis of damage to their reputation..ie libel

[OxfordBloo]

I would like to see  where in the SC ruling libel was decided....surely Portuguese law is at odds with the European Court..could the McCanns...if amaral had won the case have appealed to the European Court on the basis of damage to their reputation..ie libel

No.

Each jurisdiction makes its own laws on libel. These are only appealable to the ECHR on human rights grounds. Within Europe there is a wide range of variance on libel laws with the UK's particularly restrictive and others considerably less so. Portugal is not an outlier.

[Mr Gray]

No.

Each jurisdiction makes its own laws on libel. These are only appealable to the ECHR on human rights grounds. Within Europe there is a wide range of variance on libel laws with the UK's particularly restrictive and others considerably less so. Portugal is not an outlier.

so on human rights grounds....on the right to a good reputation

[OxfordBloo]

so on human rights grounds....on the right to a good reputation

Please city the applicable section of the ECHR and appropriate case law showing where the Court has ruled on this matter.

There is no automatic appeal to the ECHR.

[Carana]

G-unit is entirely correct. What Amaral said is protected speech for ordinary citizens as found by the previous SC ruling.

Amaral is simply at civil fault for abusing his position which makes it actionable.

If that is the case - in general terms - why have the concept of "difamação" at all?

Author investigated for calling Portuguese President ‘a clown'
By Robert Myles     May 25, 2013 in Politics
Lisbon - Portugal's Attorney General has opened an investigation after celebrated author, Miguel Sousa Tavares, called Portugal’s head of state, President Silva, a clown in an interview. The author’s remarks could see him facing a three year jail term.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350799#ixzz3Yyq7zNlL

[Eleanor]

If that is the case - in general terms - why have the concept of "difamação" at all?

Author investigated for calling Portuguese President ‘a clown'
By Robert Myles     May 25, 2013 in Politics
Lisbon - Portugal's Attorney General has opened an investigation after celebrated author, Miguel Sousa Tavares, called Portugal’s head of state, President Silva, a clown in an interview. The author’s remarks could see him facing a three year jail term.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350799#ixzz3Yyq7zNlL

Yes, I was quite interested in the reasoning behind this one.  Calling someone a Clown is hardly defamatory.

[Carana]

Wouldn't it be simpler to simply acknowledge that anarchy rules in terms of freedom of expression unless you are or were a public servant or other professional with a duty of confidentiality to uphold?

But then how does that compute with:

British woman may face trial over allegation she defamed lawyer
A British woman who accused a Portuguese lawyer of unscrupulous behaviour in a formal complaint to his regulator is to stand trial for defamation and could face jail if convicted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/8275939/British-woman-may-face-trial-over-allegation-she-defamed-lawyer.html

[Carana]

Yes, I was quite interested in the reasoning behind this one.  Calling someone a Clown is hardly defamatory.

It depends on how thick your skin is. ;)

It wouldn't be in the UK, where a certain amount of tolerance goes with the job, but PT has different standards.

[OxfordBloo]

Wouldn't it be simpler to simply acknowledge that anarchy rules in terms of freedom of expression unless you are or were a public servant or other professional with a duty of confidentiality to uphold?

But then how does that compute with:

British woman may face trial over allegation she defamed lawyer
A British woman who accused a Portuguese lawyer of unscrupulous behaviour in a formal complaint to his regulator is to stand trial for defamation and could face jail if convicted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/8275939/British-woman-may-face-trial-over-allegation-she-defamed-lawyer.html

Anarchy does not rule over defamation in Portugal. It is just that there are more protections on Free Speech there than in England.

[Montclair]

Yes, I was quite interested in the reasoning behind this one.  Calling someone a Clown is hardly defamatory.

That case was thrown out. It was ridiculous.

[Mr Gray]

Please city the applicable section of the ECHR and appropriate case law showing where the Court has ruled on this matter.

There is no automatic appeal to the ECHR.

no automatic appeal but I am sure you would agree that the McCanns could...if they wished make an appeal to the European Court..

[OxfordBloo]

no automatic appeal but I am sure you would agree that the McCanns could...if they wished make an appeal to the European Court..

On what grounds?

[Mr Gray]

On what grounds?

damage to reputation...article 10

[Carana]

Anarchy does not rule over defamation in Portugal. It is just that there are more protections on Free Speech there than in England.

I was actually considering the issue from the opposite perspective.

The case quoted, a simple citizen writing to the regulatory authority over a complaint, found herself in legal doodoos.

As far as I know, neither that case, nor the one of the journalist calling a former president a "clown" ever ended in a prison sentence, but that's not my point.

My reflection is more about whether there is a certain anarchic reaction due to outdated legislation which has the effect of muzzling ordinary citizens with legitimate causes for complaint / disgruntlement.

If that's the case, I can empathise with the effective muzzling (perhaps a hangover from the years of dictatorship), but I don't see why the McCanns should have to bear the weight of national controversy over matters that have nothing to do with them.