Dear Ben,
I have searched extensively and can find no independent confirmation
that Alpert petitioned or made a claim to the OHCHR. Other law
researchers have also failed to find the information. There was a
flurry of press articles in 2003 that such a petition had been made,
but since then there is nothing. As you know, the case was settled by
Dow Jones in Australia in November 2004.
I found a essay which seems to be a student?s work, it states that Dow
Jones made the petition but withdrew it. The claim is apparently
sourced but the original bibliography has not been made accessible. I
do not think this is reliable information.
Searches included the web site of OHCHR
http://www.ohchr.org/english/#
search engines: Google, Yahoo and All the Web, and LexisNexis, a very
comprehensive news database.
ABC news article. November 12, 2004
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1242115.htm
Defamation on the Internet: Joseph Gutnick v Dow Jones
Volume 11, Number 3 (September 2004)
?It needs to be noted that the dispute is not yet resolved. Firstly,
in April 2003, Alpert complained to the United Nations? High
Commissioner for Human Rights, alleging that Australia had violated
his right to free speech under Article 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia ratified in
1980 (see Butler and Rodrick, p. 1). The Covenant stipulates: "2.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right
shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing
or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice". However, it also specifies: "3. The exercise of the rights
provided for in #2 of this article carries with it special duties and
responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions,
but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others?". (See The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19,
University of Minnesota, 2002,
<http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm>, accessed 29 August
2004.) This writer has been unable to find the High Commissioner?s
response to that complaint.?
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113_notes.html
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113.html
University of California - extract from essay.
?Another option in balancing freedom of speech against protection of
personal reputation may be the Human Rights Committee. In its dispute
with Gutnick, Dow Jones appealed to the Human Rights Committee on
behalf of William Alpert, the journalist who wrote the story. Dow
Jones requested the international human rights body to consider how to
balance free speech and reputation on the Internet in view of Article
19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(?ICCPR?). Article 19 states that, ?Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of expression; ? subject to certain restrictions ? but these
shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: ? For
respect of the rights or reputations of others.? The Human Rights
Committee had the chance to decide whether the Australian defamation
laws unduly restricted rights of journalists under Article 19. Dow
Jones abandoned the action before the Human Rights Committee when it
settled with Gutnick. In the future, perhaps the ICCPR and the Human
Rights Committee will play a bigger role in helping find the balance
between freedom of speech and personal reputation protection with
regards to Internet communication.?
http://listproc.ucdavis.edu/class/200509/law248a-a05/att-0051/01-Jennifer_Pan_draft.DOC
http://listproc.ucdavis.edu/class/
I hope this answers your question. If it does not, or the answer is
unclear, then please ask for clarification of this research before
rating the answer. I shall respond to the clarification request as
soon as I receive it.
Thank you
answerfinder |
