As nations have aggressively implemented a wide range of mechanisms to proactively curb potential threats terrorism, Counter-Terrorism Laws and Freedom of Expression: Global Perspectives offers critical insight into how counter-terrorism laws have adversely affected journalism practice, digital citizenship, privacy, online activism, and other forms of expression. While governments assert the need for such laws to protect national security, critics argue counter-terrorism laws are prone to be misappropriated by state actors who use such laws to quash political dissent, target journalists, and restrict other forms of citizen expression. The book is divided into three parts. Part I deals with the politics and discourse of counter-terrorism laws. Part II focuses on the ways counter-terrorism laws have impacted journalistic practice in different countries, with effects ranging from imprisonment of reporters to self-censorship. Part III addresses how counter-terrorism laws have been used to target everyday citizens, social media activists, whistleblowers, and human rights advocates around the world. Together, the chapters address how counter-terrorism laws have undermined democratic values in both authoritarian and liberal political contexts. Scholars of political science, communication, and legal studies will find this book particularly interesting.

As nations have aggressively implemented a wide range of mechanisms to proactively curb potential threats terrorism, Counter-Terrorism Laws and Freedom of Expression: Global Perspectives offers critical insight into how counter-terrorism laws have adversely affected journalism practice, digital citizenship, privacy, online activism, and other forms of expression. While governments assert the need for such laws to protect national security, critics argue counter-terrorism laws are prone to be misappropriated by state actors who use such laws to quash political dissent, target journalists, and restrict other forms of citizen expression. The book is divided into three parts. Part I deals with the politics and discourse of counter-terrorism laws. Part II focuses on the ways counter-terrorism laws have impacted journalistic practice in different countries, with effects ranging from imprisonment of reporters to self-censorship. Part III addresses how counter-terrorism laws have been used to target everyday citizens, social media activists, whistleblowers, and human rights advocates around the world. Together, the chapters address how counter-terrorism laws have undermined democratic values in both authoritarian and liberal political contexts. Scholars of political science, communication, and legal studies will find this book particularly interesting.

Like medicine, law is replete with axioms of prevention. 'Prevention is better than cure' has a long pedigree in both fields. 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke observed that 'preventing justice excelleth punishing justice'. A century later, Sir William Blackstone similarly stated that 'preventive justice is ...preferable in all respects to punishing justice'. This book evaluates the feasibility and legitimacy of state attempts to regulate prevention. Though prevention may be desirable as a matter of policy, questions are inevitably raised as to its limits and legitimacy, specifically, how society reconciles the desirability of averting risks of future harm with respect for the rule of law, procedural fairness and human rights. While these are not new questions for legal scholars, they have been brought into sharper relief in policy and academic circles in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Over the past 15 years, a body of legal scholarship has tracked the intensified preventive focus of anti-terrorism law and policy, observing how this focus has impacted negatively upon traditional legal frameworks. However, preventive law and policy in other contexts, such as environmental protection, mental health, immigration and corruption has not received sustained focus. This book extends that body of scholarship, through use of case studies from these diverse regulatory settings, in order to examine and critique the principles, policies and paradoxes of preventive justice. "Whereas earlier scholars looked upon preventive justice as a source and means of regulation, the powerfully argued contributions to this volume provide forceful reasons to consider whether we would do better talk about regulating preventive justice." Professor Lucia Zedner, Oxford University

Like medicine, law is replete with axioms of prevention. 'Prevention is better than cure' has a long pedigree in both fields. 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke observed that 'preventing justice excelleth punishing justice'. A century later, Sir William Blackstone similarly stated that 'preventive justice is ...preferable in all respects to punishing justice'. This book evaluates the feasibility and legitimacy of state attempts to regulate prevention. Though prevention may be desirable as a matter of policy, questions are inevitably raised as to its limits and legitimacy, specifically, how society reconciles the desirability of averting risks of future harm with respect for the rule of law, procedural fairness and human rights. While these are not new questions for legal scholars, they have been brought into sharper relief in policy and academic circles in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Over the past 15 years, a body of legal scholarship has tracked the intensified preventive focus of anti-terrorism law and policy, observing how this focus has impacted negatively upon traditional legal frameworks. However, preventive law and policy in other contexts, such as environmental protection, mental health, immigration and corruption has not received sustained focus. This book extends that body of scholarship, through use of case studies from these diverse regulatory settings, in order to examine and critique the principles, policies and paradoxes of preventive justice. "Whereas earlier scholars looked upon preventive justice as a source and means of regulation, the powerfully argued contributions to this volume provide forceful reasons to consider whether we would do better talk about regulating preventive justice." Professor Lucia Zedner, Oxford University

In 2014 when Tim Carmody, a former police officer, was sworn in as Chief Justice of Queensland, he had been Chief Magistrate for only nine months and had never served on the Supreme Court. It was one of the most controversial judicial appointments in Australia’s history. Chaos ensued. Appointed by then-premier Campbell Newman, Carmody lacked the experience and nous to hold Queensland’s judicial system together. How could someone with a limited judicial background be appointed to such a powerful position? The Tim Carmody Affair explores his damaging and divisive tenure and the judicial rebellion that followed. It proposes ways Australia can improve the process of judicial appointments to avoid this kind of controversy again.