Cearta.ie🔒 SSL Verified

Table of Contents

• ↓ Mammoth judgments, and how to stop them
• ↓ Censorship and constitutional speech rights – Part 2 – good reasons and legitimate aims
• ↓ Censorship and constitutional speech rights – Part 1 – political expression and autonomous communication
• ↓ Breaking News!! Secondary rights, Copyright, Open access, Institutional policies, and Rights retention
• ↓ Indecency, obscenity, immorality, vice, depravity, corruption: the chilling effect of the Censorship of Publications Acts – Part 2 (censor and chill)
• ↓ Indecency, obscenity, immorality, vice, depravity, corruption: the chilling effect of the Censorship of Publications Acts – Part 1 (general principles)
• ↓ Top Alternatives to cearta.ie

6-Month Traffic Trend Estimate

Official Contact & Profiles

Visual representation extracted from cearta.ie

Content Snippets from cearta.ie

"While I was procrastinating over coffee this morning, a post by Hilary Young on LinkedIn drew my attention to an article by her colleague Paul Warchuk on the “trend of systemic prolixity” in the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) (reported here | preprint here | forthcoming in the Canadian Bar Review). I enjoyed the article so much that I thought I’d take another break from my ongoing censorship series to comment on it."

"The disease of mammoth judgments has infected many (most? all?) other apex and inter/supra-national courts too. Vigorous application of screening mechanisms (such as denying leave to appeal) has reduced the number of cases, thus giving more time to compose long judgments. As time goes on, the set of materials to be considered (including not only prior judgments in the jurisdiction in question, but also relevant judgments in other jurisdictions, and academic discussions of the issues) is rapidly expanding. This increases not only the length of written and oral submissions of counsel but also the volume of underlying materials to be assessed by the judges. Law clerks and judicial researchers ease research (and writing) burdens. And then, of course, the computer has a lot to answer for: it makes writing easier; it permits extensive research; it makes more materials available (we no longer lack unreported judgments; we are not confined to paper materials in libraries); the scourge of cut-and-paste (and keyboard shortcuts) reduces difficulties in citing and quoting materials; it enables defensive rather than sensible footnoting and completism rather than completeness (for example, “see also” ad nauseam); and it encourages the vanity of showing off (Look how much I’ve considered!…"

"In the aftermath of Irish Family Planning Association v Ryan [1979] IR 295 (27 July 1978) (noted here and here), Prof Kieran Woodman interviewed Judge Noel Ryan (obituary), then Chairman of the Censorship of Publications Board, and the named defendant in the case (Kieran Woodman Media Control in Ireland 1923-1983 (Southern Illinois UP, 1985 | Amazon) 158). Woodman asked Ryan whether, “as a constitutional lawyer”, he considered “that the Censorship Acts were constitutionally valid?”:"

"The answer was slow and measured, and the words presumably weighed and chosen with care. “Yes, they would pass muster on the grounds of public order and morality and in the interests of the common good.” (ibid, emphasis added)."

Key Topics & Focus Areas for cearta.ie:

Mammoth judgments, and how to stop them

Censorship and constitutional speech rights – Part 2 – good reasons and legitimate aims

Censorship and constitutional speech rights – Part 1 – political expression and autonomous communication

Breaking News!! Secondary rights, Copyright, Open access, Institutional policies, and Rights retention

Indecency, obscenity, immorality, vice, depravity, corruption: the chilling effect of the Censorship of Publications Acts – Part 2 (censor and chill)

Indecency, obscenity, immorality, vice, depravity, corruption: the chilling effect of the Censorship of Publications Acts – Part 1 (general principles)