Best of the blogs
Weekly round-up of the top legal blogosphere posts
I was arrested after asking “who elected him?” at the proclamation of King Charles [Prospect]
So now you care about free speech? [Spiked]
Protest and the public good [The Critic]
HM courts move on [A Lawyer Writes]
Top literary references and Latin phrases law students need to know [Legal Cheek]
Why the broadcast of the Accession Council was informative and significant [The Law and Policy Blog]
How to tackle illegal migration [The Spectator] (free, but registration required)
IP as a political instrument in Russia [The IPKat]
Still holding up a decade later? An insight into the effectiveness of the Etridge Protocol [Legal Cheek Journal]
Interpretation after the Human Rights Act? The Principle of Legality and the Rule of Law [UK Constitutional Law Association]
Exam graded [Law Society Gazette]
For all the latest commercial awareness info, news and careers advice:
Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter
1 Comment
Anon
In response to the ‘Spiked’ article. Someone can believe that the right to free speech is important but (rightly) qualified. It is not necessarily inconsistent or hypocritical for someone with that view to argue that some censure is appropriate in some circumstances but not others. Inconsistencies do arise when someone implies that freedom of speech is inviolable and then goes on to support an infringement of that freedom in any particular instance. The broad brush of this article belies the range of views being expressed on either side. Many commentators (right or wrong) have been consistent in their arguments, then again many haven’t.
Comments are closed.