This is a site designed to make it easier to take the core of large published reports and allow anyone to comment on them.
17. The Court of Appeal in Loutchansky, while recognising the social utility of archives, took the view that they were a “comparatively insignificant aspect of freedom of expression” and were not harmed by the existence of the multiple publication rule. Against this, it may be argued that the rule does not adequately recognise the social importance of archives and that any operation of the rule in this context creates the danger that the dissemination of ideas and information over the internet will be inhibited, restricting freedom of expression.
I'm inclined to agree with the consultation's argument here, rather than the Court of Appeal's.Posted by Owen Blacker on 2009-10-03 22:39:45. Link. Report abuse to firstname.lastname@example.org. Back to the main document list