Difference between revisions of "Howard Fredrics"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In the Spring of 2010, he was charged with breaching Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for having published a satirical whistleblower website alleging wrongdoing by public officials at Kingston University. <ref>[http://www.sirpeterscott.com/ The offending website]</ref> | In the Spring of 2010, he was charged with breaching Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for having published a satirical whistleblower website alleging wrongdoing by public officials at Kingston University. <ref>[http://www.sirpeterscott.com/ The offending website]</ref> | ||
| − | On 22-23 July 2010, Howard Fredrics was found to have 'no case to answer' by District Judge Kreiman sitting at the Kingston Magistrates Court. In his ruling, DJ Kreiman found that ''Harassment laws were not intended to protect individual reputations.'' He also found that the site contained material in the public interest. < | + | On 22-23 July 2010, Howard Fredrics was found to have 'no case to answer' by District Judge Kreiman sitting at the Kingston Magistrates Court. In his ruling, DJ Kreiman found that ''Harassment laws were not intended to protect individual reputations.'' He also found that the site contained material in the public interest. <ref>[http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/30.7.10comet.jpg - 'Victory for Free Speech'] - Surrey Comet 30 July 2010</ref> |
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Revision as of 06:56, 16 June 2011
'Howard Frederics is a composer and former Senior Lecturer of Music at Kingston University in the UK.
In the Spring of 2010, he was charged with breaching Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for having published a satirical whistleblower website alleging wrongdoing by public officials at Kingston University. [1]
On 22-23 July 2010, Howard Fredrics was found to have 'no case to answer' by District Judge Kreiman sitting at the Kingston Magistrates Court. In his ruling, DJ Kreiman found that Harassment laws were not intended to protect individual reputations. He also found that the site contained material in the public interest. [2]
See Also
- Ian Puddick - Another case where heavy-handed use of section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Though in this case it is the cosy relationships between global 'Security' firms and the police that is of dominant interest.
References
- ↑ The offending website
- ↑ - 'Victory for Free Speech' - Surrey Comet 30 July 2010
