A workshop to scrutinize in-depth the transformation of the contemporary international order, as outlined in Professor Sir Adam Roberts' lecture of the previous day. Participants include Oxford Professor of Socio-Legal Studies Denis Galligan, international lawyer Mary Bartkus, social scientist Prof Ralph Schroeder, and economist Prof David Vines.
Professor Sir Adam Roberts, Senior Research Fellow in International Relations, Oxford, will analyse the contemporary decline of the liberal order, and call for a rethinking of liberal ideas and practices. The Keynote Lecture will open a workshop the following day.
Distinguished philosopher Professor Sir Richard Sorabji re-entered the free speech debate in a lecture for the Foundation for Law, Justice and Society at Wolfson College last night by reprising his 2015 lecture on the theme with a renewed focus on fake news and social media.
Can the Internet ever ‘forget’ personal details about us?
In this lecture, Professor Sir Richard Sorabji considers free speech in the age of social media, and questions whether legal restrictions on certain speech acts or self-restraint would be the most effective and appropriate means to secure freedoms while protecting against harms.
Can the rights of individuals to make personal injury claims from pharmaceutical companies have adverse long-term consequences for society?
This is the question at the heart of this Policy Brief by Mary E Bartkus, who draws on her own experience of defending international claims amounting to billions of dollars, to argue that the cost of speculative claims can prevent the development of future life-saving medicines.
The policy brief examines the case of the pain reliever Vioxx® (rofecoxib), which was used by millions of patients worldwide before it was withdrawn from the market by Merck & Co., Inc. in ‘the interests of patients’ and ‘as the responsible course to take’, leading to more than 50,000 claims and class actions in the US and hundreds of jurisdictions across six continents.
Although Merck won most of the cases heard in the United States and prevailed in jurisdictions around the world, the company spent approximately $10 billion in withdrawing the medication and defending the litigation. Given that developing a new medication takes ten to fifteen years on average, and costs an average of $2.6 billion, the money that Merck & Co., Inc. spent to defend litigation could have funded the discovery and development of up to four or more new breakthrough life-saving and life-sustaining medications.
The Policy Brief questions the winners and losers in such a scenario, triggered when claimant lawyers capitalize on contingency fees, no cost-shifting, third party funding, relaxed standards of proof, and lay juries ill-equipped to decide complex scientific issues to fight such mass tort cases. The social cost is instructive as Europe considers a proposed Directive on collective actions that, even in its current form, would appear to permit diverse national class action regimes and procedures and invite forum shopping and costly litigation.
Jufang Wang, a former news editor in China and academic visitor at the BBC, offers insights into the Communist Party’s efforts to control public opinion in China through its regulation of social media platforms such as Weibo, WeChat, and Toutiao. She describes the widening gap between the official pronouncements of the Party and the views and opinions expressed through social media, the erosion of legitimacy this brings, and the policy of regulating platforms through 24-hour policing of content by tens of thousands of content moderators.
LSE media expert and Government adviser Damian Tambini argues that social media companies have a 'duty of care' to protect users from harms caused by content published on their platforms, in response to the government's policy proposals in its White Paper on Online Harms.
He argues that the government is correct to propose a new institution, Ofweb, with the power to regulate online content in order to combat the significant harms caused by hate speech, foreign interference in democracy, images of self-harm, and terrorist content online. Yet he also warns of the potential dangers in the approach of the White Paper, which could inhibit freedom of expression if the harms are not clearly defined.
The policy brief proposes a detailed distinction between harmful but legal content and illegal content, and that illegal content should be met with sanctions including civil fines.
Tambini tackles the central legal and constitutional problem regarding a new code of conduct for legal harms such as political speech that interferes in the democratic process – so-called ‘fake news’. He finds that such censorship-like functions would not accord with the European Convention on Human Rights free speech test on proportionality, legality (parliamentary oversight), and necessity in a democratic society.
Therefore, Parliament must decide if new offences and categories of content require new laws and liabilities and set standards for blocking or filtering the most dangerous content. Given the dynamic nature of online harms, the process for introducing new laws to reflect harms should be more efficient and evidence-based, with advice from the new regulator.
How do we prevent harms caused by online content, and should the state, or internet giants like Facebook and Twitter be primarily responsible for regulating content published on their platforms?
This was the central question addressed by the Foundation for Law, Justice and Society at a workshop at Wolfson College last week to assess in what ways online speech is and should be governed in China and the West.
Katarína Šipulová recounts the capture of one arm of the state – the judiciary – in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, where post-Soviet democratization was largely influenced by the EU accession conditionality, and consequently paid little regard to the specific factors at play in the region, leading to vague rules and poor oversight of the judiciary, which was consequently captured from within.