Slashdot Mirror
UK Censorship: Demonic Consequences
The problem is with the British legal system, which makes defending against libel suits difficult. Essentially, the defendant has to prove his or her innocence, typically by proving the truth of every challenged statement (and there are other systemic flaws as well). In such a system, putting up a defense is such a hassle - and so expensive - that settling out of court is almost always easier.
The Laurence Godfrey case was settled out of court, setting not a precedent but a bad example. Most libel cases do settle. After Godfrey's victory, now even more will.
One of the better-known cases which went all the way to the verdict was the McLibel trial, in which everyone's favorite multinational food chain sued two unemployed activists for handing out a pamphlet. Attempting to prove the truth of every single statement in the brief factsheet took the vegetarians two years. They could not afford to pay legal counsel or even to buy the transcripts of their own trial's proceedings. They lost, but the negative publicity was a Pyrrhic victory for McDonald's.
And in very recent news, the big story has been one in which a Holocaust-denier brought suit for a book which (essentially) called him a Holocaust-denier. This time, the good guys won, but only because the author and publisher were willing to spend two million pounds to illustrate that the facts were on their side. The bookstores that were sued had settled quickly out of court and agreed to the plaintiff's terms. (If you follow this case, some excellent and very detailed legal analysis can be found at a site I happen to Webmaster, in the essays Irving'sWar.)
Even if a libel suit is only hinted-at, as in the Outcast and CACIB cases, pre-emptively removing the material is the publisher's safest move. Don't like what someone says? Afraid of what they might say? Gag'em!
The U.K. needs to wise up and bring its libel law into the 20th century, or its citizens will quickly find themselves inhabiting a Bland Speech Zone. An island on the Internet, if you will, where nobody dares say anything about anyone else - or if they do, they prudently take their speech (and their money) offshore.
As a Demon settlement news report predicted two weeks ago:
"If the ISPs become more cautious over what material they allow to be published - by screening submissions or suspending Web sites - they could inflame the debate over freedom of expression or damage internet-based businesses."
Neither of which, surely, will benefit the people of the U.K.
Update: 04/18 03:21 by J : Two good commentaries today from lawyers relating to the Holocaust-denier's lawsuit. The legal team defending against the Holocaust-denier's lawsuit has an interesting contrary view in today's Independent. They argue that British libel law works, and is getting better in response to criticism. But when they write:
"...libel actions and the associated costs are part of the process of publishing. They are to the publishing industry what construction disputes are to the building industry. If the litigation is expensive that is a criticism of the price of litigation - not of libel litigation specifically."
they obscure an important point. We are all publishers in the internet age. If publishing is to be restricted to those who can afford "industry" insurance policies against million-pound legal fees, put a fork in the U.K.'s internet - it's done.
And, see also a legal viewpoint from the defending publisher's lawyers.
-"Hi honey, I'm in jail."
-"What?! What for?"
-"I robbed a limousine."
-"What? Why did you do that?!"
-"Well, you see, Slashdot told me to do it! It says rob limo, rob limo everywhere. It influenced my mind, because I'm so stupid to think with my own brains. I desperately need some kind of censorship to decide what's good for me. I have no will of my own. It's their fault."
-"...I know, let's sue this Slashdot thing!"
-"Jolly good!"
Sir, you are arrested for having the words "Blair" and "suc" and "ks" written backwards in the source of your web page. This is clearly libel and as such we will place you into arrest by terminating you immediately with this well-directed shot of clueless legalese.
I is da famous gangsta rappa, Ice Creem, and I would like to share wit' you my thoughts on dis matter, which is of real importance to da people of England.
I went to England on my last tour wit' my crew and it seemed to me that there is some heavy shit goin' on over there. Their "Labour" government (dat is something like our own Democrat party) seems to be trying to crack down on many forms of free speech. They have this law called "RIP" (Rest in Pieces or something) which make it illegal for you to have pictures of ho's on your computer, and now they is tryin' to take down websitez with dirty pictures on too.
But this is about more than pictures of ho's. It is about free speech. It means that when I is in da UK I cannot use the web to disrespect my homies, or else the government will sue me. Back in my hood, if I want to censor someone who disses my bitch, then I pop a cap in his ass. That's the justice of da street and that's the way it's always bin. Dis new law is very sinister.
Best Wishes, Da Notorious Ice Creem
Demon basically dropped the ball.
If someone put what looked like libellous statements on a web server, and the alleged libel victim complained to the hosting ISP, you'd expect the ISP to investigate and/or drop the page right?
Web server admins make decisions about content all the time. They censor based on law, taste, bandwidth... no big deal. When you want to put up a webpage with dodgy content, you have to find an ISP prepared to publish your pages. No big deal.
Usenet is not that different.
Usenet servers are local servers. Messages are not transmitted; they are STORED and forwarded. When you request a message from soc.culture.thai, you don't retrieve a message from a computer in Thailand, you retrieve the message from your ISP's local server. And don't try to compare Usenet servers to proxies or caches; proxies and caches refresh after a few hours- with a Usenet server the messages are held for days or weeks on end.
It basically boils down to this one issue:
If you run a Usenet server, you are publishing.
And as we all know, libel is the crime of publishing untrue defamatory statements.
Demon committed libel.
And the great thing about UK law is the word "reasonable". Did Demon have "reasonable" grounds to suspect that they had a libellous message on their server? Did Demon have "reasonable" notification and time to remove the message? Crikey, yes they did. Loads. And Demon still didn't pull the message.
With a UK libel case, normally it would never get to court. What normally happens is that the person who was libelled contacts the publisher and says "oi, that's not right, remove/correct it". Then the publisher checks it's facts and, if it thinks it's appropriate, corrects or pulls the article and we all go home and live happily ever after and nobody goes to court.
My point here is that the UK libel laws don't allow you to just sue the publisher straight off. You have to be "reasonable" and give the publisher a chance to comply. Only if they refuse to comply with your requests can you take them to court.
Godfrey contacted Demon and requested that the libellous message be removed on numerous occasions. Demon refused despite these numerous warnings. Taking Demon to court was a last resort.
Now you and I know that the exact same libellous message was on thousands of other servers, but that's not the point. Godfrey requested that Demon remove a libellous message. Yes, he could have requested the same thing from thousands of other ISPs, but he didn't. He just requested that the message be removed from Demon's server, not anybody else's. Demon repeatedly refused to comply and hey presto, they got banged to rights guv. No big deal.
for this great article on censorship coming from the biggest pile of hypocritical shit to ever walk the face of the earth, TacoBoy.
Some people are instantly modded out of sight. That is not censorship. You continue to post these stories pretending that you are the bastion of free and independent thought, and all it proves is that you are more of a phony every day.
Today, it is outrage at censorship. Yesterday, it was an off-topic post about the stock market, but everytime someone shits a Lego, you write a story about it. Yup, that is on-topic.
Funny how the stock market was on-topic when all those IPOs were happening and Linux was getting validated. Now that those companies have tanked at a greater rate than the overall market, the subject is taboo. Or even better, how many stories did we get on the LinuxOne IPO? Oh yeah, but we are not CNBC, unless ESR writes us a memo on how much he is worth. I want a new memo from gunboy on how much he is worth today.
Everytime you open your mouth, you find another foot to stick in it. Three hours till the market opens and your shotglass portfolio will soon be an eyedropper.
One more thing, keep up the good work.
I totally disagree, because taking away freedoms is a slippery slope. Everyone's always quick to tell us how teensy-weensy their particular form of censorship is -- "No comparison at all to muzzling the people!" they exclaim.
Agreed in part. It IS a slippery slope, and care must be taken. I like /.'s approach because it doesn't actually remove posts, yet helps to keep the discussions functional.
The alternative is a sort of censorship where posting to /. becomes pointless due to the noise. There is little difference between 'you may not speak' and 'you may speak, but your voice will never be heard over the thousand yipping morons who will surround you'.
Read the discussions at -2 some time to see what I mean. IMHO, /.'s approach is much better than the alternatives.
Now, that (IMHO) is quite a sensible criterion. If a remark has no influence on other people's opinions, whatsoever, then what does it matter whether it's true, false or purple with green spots?
On the other hand, if the comments have seriously impacted the plaintiff (not just in their mind, but in the views of people in general who have heard the remarks), then it makes sense to weigh whether the remarks are, on the balance of probability, true or false.
If the accusations are true, and they cause damage to someone's image, then that should be fair comment. If what you're doing is LIKELY to invoke the wrath of society, if it knew, you should be willing to accept the risks.
On the other hand, if the accusations are false, the people who made the remarks should make some kind of reparation for the damage they've done. Freedom speech is a great thing, same as freedom of movement, but you still expect to cough up cash if you drive through someone's gate and demolish the front of their house.
IMHO, libel laws (NOT just in the UK, but in the US as well) need to stop assuming one side is guilty and the other is innocent. In the US, libel is next to impossible to prove, because of the 1st Ammendment. If you deliberately make remarks which destroy other people's livlihoods or standing in the community, for that purpose, the last thing anyone needs is for the courts to pay YOU for the damage!
What's needed, IMHO, for libel is an initial no-guilt assumption. BOTH sides present their claims, arguments and proofs on a TOTALLY level playing-field. To prevent one side or the other dominating, though, both sides should present exactly the same amount of "evidence". That way, large corporations can't simply swamp the case, as with the McDonald's case in the intro.
IMHO, law will only mean anything when it ceases to be about money and starts to be about people.
Oh, and lastly, for anyone who thinks British Law is too lenient ALL the time on the side of the "victims", who remembers the case of the former Eastenders actress? The judge ruled in favour of the tabloids (for once) on the grounds that he also had a dirty mind. IMHO, the tabloids escallated onto the national stage a trivial incident that may well have never occured, simply to sell papers and "shock" readers.
IMHO, if they ban landmines, and want a place to dispose of them, places like the HQ's of The Sun, The Star, The Sport and The Daily Mirror spring to mind. Get rid of those obnoxious, depraved weapons AND the landmines at the same time.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I found a good Q&A about US libel law here:http://freeadvice.com/law/576us.htm.
As I understand it, the main difference in US law is that it is very difficult for a public figure to sue for libel in the US since the defendant must be shown to have knowingly and maliciously made a false statement. For a private individual like Mr. Godfrey it seems to be quite similar to UK law.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
From Webster Online: censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Since Slashdot does not do this (only volunteer moderators) at all, the site is not guilty of censorship. And since you can browse at -100 if you want, and get every post ever made, no one is enforcing any kind of censorship.
To claim that Slashdot promotes censorship is like claiming that Siskel and Ebert are censoring movies they rate as "two thumbs down" (-2?). Since no one is stopping you from seeing the film anyhow, there is no censorship.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
I live and work here and I'd much much rather support a UK ISP than an American one but If UK ISP's are going to just buckle and not put pressure on government representatives because it's expedient then they must be punished financially.
Move your sites off of UK hosted ISPs and tell them why you are doing this. Encourage others to do the same.
Deleted
"It is time to move beyond the social indifference of right and left, libertarian nonsense masquerading as freedom."
I'd like to have at least an attempt at changing things a little first though. We need a constitution. We need to figure out what is and isn't a legitimate task of Government. We need to have the Great Tax Debate. We need to have a political party that actually champions inherent freedoms as a policy.
We are an envious, unimaginative, reactive, bigotted, bitter society. We do not reward success; rather we punish it. We do not understand ideas of freedom and self-expression, but we attack their proponents bitterly.
Perhaps this goes some way to explaining how this situation has arisen. Very few people in Britain will be concerned about this; the idea that the free exchange of ideas will be curtailed doesn't disturb them. The notion that expressing a controversial opinion might be impossible carries no fear. After all, normal people don't have such ideas or opinions. And the greatest crime in Britain is to be other than the normal?
And what is normal? For a start, you should live in a small, pokey house. You should work for a large company, but you shouldn't care about your job too much. You should buy the Sun each day, and closely follow stories about the Queen Mother's health (Gawd bless'er!). You should have absolutely know understanding or interest in science. You should regard with suspicion anyone who does.
You should subscribe to Sky Sports. But definitely not Film Four.
You should have not-quite-enough money, but you should resent those who have more. You should distrust the Internet and believe "something must be done" about it - even though you've never used it.
In short, you are bitter, boring, suspicious, reactive, a sheep, and a hypocrite. You are also, sad to say, pretty stupid. Most importantly, you never let your lack of knowledge on a particular subject cloud your judgement.
In a country full of people like this, people who basically don't believe that other people deserve freedom, is it any suprise that our politicians and laws and judges show the same prejudices? Who could expect better than them?
Last thing (thanks for reading this long!):
Tony Blair, our esteemed leader, recently used the phrase "libertarian nonsense". Now, not everyone is a commited no-compromise libertarian, but I'm sure that everyone knows that the opposite of "libertarian" is "authoritarian". That word, "authoritarian", sums up exactly which way Britain is going. And I'm going elsewhere.. any suggestions?
You say common carriers are required to server everyone, not just their customers -- how do phone companies and ISPs differ? Both can cancel service for non-payment, both have to accept all incoming calls.
--
Infuriate left and right
Just move your servers outsite of the U.K.
That's all.
--
I can't believe someone modded the above message up as "insightful". Even if the thought behind it is sound, the presentation is full of invective and needless derogatory remarks.
It is possible (and more effective) to criticize without the personal attacks.
I totally disagree, because taking away freedoms is a slippery slope. Everyone's always quick to tell us how teensy-weensy their particular form of censorship is -- "No comparison at all to muzzling the people!" they exclaim.
But then, years later, a freedom lost here, a freedom lost there, ho-hum, it all adds up. Then when you bother to reflect upon it, you see just how far the bar has moved. Remember how silly and innocuous those "1001 Tasteless Jokes" books used to be when you were a kid? Try telling one of the "blonde" jokes in there at your average university these days, and if you're lucky, someone won't overhear you and you won't be dragged in front of the student judicial board on charges of sexism. If you don't think that your freedoms have eroded over the years, and worse, if you think that it only happens in "Big Story" cases that you hear about, rather than a gradual erosion over time due to tiny things you never even thought twice about, you just haven't been paying attention.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
The way that some posters' writings are automatically shoved to -2, even when marked up by moderators, Slashdot seems to be engaging in a double standard when they rail against censorship.
The bottom line is that it's mighty easy to wave the free speech flag, but pretty meaningless if you aren't willing to stick up for it, even in cases whereby it negatively affects you.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
As I understand it, in the US, ISPs enjoy "common carrier" status, and so are not responsible for the content on their servers. If you want to sue someone, you sue the author, if you can find them... In the UK, ISPs have been ruled to be more akin to publishers, who are fair game for legal action under our libel laws.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Well, isn't it one of the wonders the net brought us? If your country doesn't let you express yourself, you can still do it easily from another one and yet reach the same audience.
IMHO, it's only a matter of time before major British sites start migrating to offshore ISPs. After that is done, maybe the ISPs will start lobbying their MPs to change that stupid libel law because it harms their profitability. Hey, that's how it works nowadays... Your average Joe Government doesn't give a fsck about freedom of speech as long as he makes good business. Watch the USA and China... Who cares about freedom when you have a 1+ Billion potential customers...who might actually get forced to buy your stuff.
Humans really start making me puke sometimes.
max
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
Another part of this problem in the UK is due to the laws surrounding who is and who isn't considered a publisher. As far as I understand it, in a libel suit, it's both the writer and the publisher who can be sued.
Now why (you might ask) has an ISP been sued in that case? Well, the answer is that in the UK a precedent was set a long time ago that in libel cases concerning traditional paper published material the publisher is considered to be the writer, the publisher, the distributor and the retail outlet that sells the material!
Yup - any of those people can be sued for libel in a book or magazine.
So of course, it was a natural progression that an ISP would be considered a publisher in this case, as opposed to being a common carrier like the postal service. I remember about 5 years ago a similar debate regarding whether ISP's would have to check all the content found on bulletin boards on their sites. There was a lot of pressure for ISP's to never check anything on their sites so that they could be considered common carriers. However it seems that these days, ISP's have lost the fight and can now be held responsible for information found on their servers. Which level this could be taken to is kinda chilling - does information passing through a server (email for instance) also count as published material?
Unfortunately, the UK has a bunch of very restrictive laws surrounding freedom of speech. Civil liberties have been gradually eroded over the last 20 years, so that nowadays there is no real "right to silence", you can be easily prosecuted for importation of "obscene" material and now you cannot air free speech on a web server.
I for one am glad I moved to Sweden - which has it's own problems, but seems more open than the post Thatcher UK.
"Give the anarchist a cigarette"
A little planning goes a long way...
This sounds more like a description of what the tabloids believe the UK population to be. Its the tabloid newspapers that engineer public beliefs and then use populist rhetoric to maintain public support. See they're racist campaign against asylum seekers as an example.
Sadly, we can`t pile all the blame onto the tabloids. They wouldn`t print things if people didn`t buy them. And people tend to read only what reflects the views they`ve made already. So the tabloids are only reflecting the thought processes of their readers.
Unfortunately.
I used to be with Demon as an ISP - I gave up a few months ago because they squandered my UKP10/month on quake servers without asking whether I wanted them or not - I don't! In the process of leaving I sent a mail saying "I'm off, because I don't like this" and got a stupid mail back asking why... 'nuff said! Glad to be out, now.
At the moment the UK is not looking like a good place to stay. I think the RIP bill working its way through parliament is an evil abomination (basically escrow to screw the nation over some poxy criminals - and Jack Straw expected me to believe this!), and with censorship on the rise as well... you can hardly say we're one of the 'Net's leading countries, can you?
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Of course the site authors are still just as vulnerable to lawsuits as ever, but in practice the plaintiff has to find them first. If you go to a US host in the first place then that would mean extracting customer records from the US company.
Overall its the same old mechanism: censorship is damage, so route around it.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
In the (US) deep south, the government rarely killed any black men itself, but it sure did a good job of fostering a lynch-mob mentality among its citizens who did the dirty work for it. It's an extreme, but analogous situation, at least structurally.
I myself wouldn't mind the moderation nearly so much if it didn't allow really small people to further their really small interests by punishing those with something productive to say.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false.
That is the crucial difference between the US and the UK for non-public figures. In the US you have to prove that it was false, in the UK the other party has to prove that it was true.
This seems to be the same thing, but it is very different. Suppose the debatable point was "You were not in Paris last Saturday" (believe it or not, a recent notorious case depended on this very point). For you to prove that is false (i.e. that you were in Paris) is easy: Plane tickets, hotel receipts, credit cards, subway tickets, etc. For the defendent to prove that you weren't in Paris is very difficult (as proving a negative often is).
There are several problems with libel laws as they stand.
1.) The burden of proof (as the article said) is on the defendant. This is a bad thing. To take a recent example The Sunday Times lost a libel case recent when they rubbished a book claiming Trimble was a member of a secret conspiracy group called "The Crucible". Why did they lose? Well, how can you prove that someone isn't a member of a secret consiracy group?
2.) The costs are insane. In the Godfrey case he got 15kGBP in damages - the lawyers got an estimated 500kGBP in fees. This also gives some insight as to why the lawyers aren't keen on changing them :(
3.) The damages are based on whether something is likely to damage your reputation - not by how much your repuation has been damaged.
All in all not a good situation. In the US I believe there is a requirement to show malice before it can be considered libel - in the UK the most innoucous statement can be considered libellous if it is not factually correct even if the person making the statement believes it to be true. Truth is not a surefire defence either - more accurate would be "Truth that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and which was not published with the intent to reduce a persons reputation."
it's not censorship though. it's only censorship if the posts are automatically unreadable by anyone. True, you need to do a little foolery to read at -2, but you can. It's just as easy to point the finger of hypocracy as it is to support free speech. And I think /. does a good job of providing a forum for free speech, not just preaching it. Hell, it even gives JonKatz a home ;-)
Yeah, there are some problems with the moderation system. I've seen cases like you mention where a post is modded up and still in the negatives. But free speech is the right to say what you want; not the right to be heard anyway.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
. . . we're BOTH actually ON TOPIC?!?!?!? What the hell is up with that!!!
;-)
next thing you know I'll get a significant amount of non+1funny karma. *shudders*
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
I've seen some posters equate ISPs with publishers. To them I say, B.S.
To state that a Usenet server is a "publisher", implicitly assumes that an individual has no right at all to be seen or heard by more than one person without sponsorship by a third party, and that an individual Usenet server acts as such a third party. Also assumed is a notion that "the public" does not have a right to obtain information that is not scrubbed by a third party.
There are two responsibilities for any Internet server, be it Gopher, WWW, or Usenet, and those responsibilities are uptime and response time, in that order.
Usenet, in particular, is a forum. It is not a publisher, nor are any of its member servers, nor are any of its myriad clients.
I wonder though, If one can send Usenet-wide kill requests, is it possible to filter such requests?
But I don't know the exact nature of the suit. It would appear that plaintiff is filing to prevent the information from being seen by usenet clients that connect to the ISP's server. (I guess he's never heard of Deja, or Deja's next on the suing list). If he's filing to prevent the spread of posts "originating" from that server, well, as you've described, it's probably a little bit late.
I'm afraid your best option is Mars. Failing that, check out Canada. I've never been there, but from what I hear it's less evil than pretty much everything else.
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
The question at hand is this: How do we mold the early videotex environment so that noise is suppressed without limiting the free flow of information between customers?
The first obstacle is, of course, legal. As the knights of U.S. feudalism, corporate lawyers have a penchant for finding ways of stomping out innovation and diversity in any way possible. In the case of videotex, the attempt is to keep feudal control of information by making videotex system ownership imply liability for information transmitted over it. For example, if a libelous communication takes place, corporate lawyers for the plaintiff will bring suit against the carrier rather than the individual responsible for the communication. The rationalizations for this clearly unreasonable and contrived position are quite numerous. Without a common carrier status, the carrier will be treading on virgin ground legally and thus be unprotected by precedent. Indeed, the stakes are high enough that the competitor could easily afford to fabricate an event ideal for the purposes of such a suit. This means the first legal precedent could be in favor of holding the carrier responsible for the communications transmitted over its network, thus forcing (or giving an excuse for) the carrier to inspect, edit and censor all communications except, perhaps, simple person-to-person or "electronic mail". This, in turn, would put editorial control right back in the hands of the feudalists. Potential carriers' own lawyers are already hard at work worrying everyone about such a suit. They would like to win the battle against diversity before it begins. This is unlikely because videotex is still driven by technology and therefore by pioneers.
The question then becomes: How do we best protect against such "legal" tactics? The answer seems to be an early emphasis on secure identification of the source of communications so that there can be no question as to the individual responsible. This would preempt an attempt to hold the carrier liable. Anonymous communications, like Delphi conferencing, could even be supported as long as some individual would be willing to attach his/her name to the communication before distributing it. This would be similar, legally, to a "letters to the editor" column where a writer remains anonymous. Another measure could be to require that only individuals of legal age be allowed to author publishable communications. Yet another measure could be to require anyone who wishes to write and publish information on the network to put in writing, in an agreement separate from the standard customer agreement, that they are liable for any and all communications originating under their name on the network. This would preempt the "stolen password" excuse for holding the carrier liable.
Beyond the secure identification of communication sources, there is the necessity of editorial services. Not everyone is going to want to filter through everything published by everyone on the network. An infrastructure of editorial staffs is that filter. In exchange for their service the editorial staff gets to promote their view of the world and, if they are in enough demand, charge money for access to their list of approved articles. On a videotex network, there is little capital involved in establishing an editorial staff. All that is required is a terminal and a file on the network which may have an intrinsic cost as low as $5/month if it represents a publication with "only" around 100 articles. The rest is up to the customers. If they like a publication, they will read it. If they don't they won't. A customer could ask to see all articles approved by staffs A or B inclusive, or only those articles approved by both A and B, etc. This sort of customer selection could involve as many editorial staffs as desired in any logical combination. An editorial staff could review other editorial staffs as well as individual articles, forming hierarchies to handle the mass of articles that would be submitted every day. This sort of editorial mechanism would not only provide a very efficient way of filtering out poor and questionable communications without inhibiting diversity, it would add a layer of liability for publications that would further insulate carriers from liability and therefore from a monopoly over communications.
In general, anything that acts to filter out bad information and that is not under control of the carrier, acts to prevent the carrier from monopolizing the evolution of ideas on the network.
...
Seastead this.
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
Arguing that I am obligated to listen to those idiots and branding me a hypocrite if I don't is quite stupid. Do you read spam thoroughly? Do you read the entirety of usenet every day unfiltered? By your argument if you don't, you're denying all those people their freedom of speech.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Aren't we discussing potentially libelous things here on Slashdot? Aren't some of our participants native to or living in the United Kingdom?
Won't they sue Slashdot for libel against libel??
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
ALST R&D Center, IL
rJames.org - illustration
Where do you people come up with this stuff? Prefacing statments with "I am of the opinion of" doesn't lend them any less potentially libelous at all (your statement is not likely libelous because it is so vague -- try saying "I am of the opinion that Lawrence Godfrey is a child molester" and see how far that defense gets you if he tries to sue).
Normally you have to manually add &threshold=-2 or whatever to the URL to see those posts, but this post tells you how to do it permanently with a little hacking. Then you can browse all of the posts, even the "/. censored" ones.
I think that Rob et al. are making some changes to the Slash code in order to allow for some anti-spam measures. The reason I think is that April 20 is coming up, the anniversary of Columbine, and it threatens to become a complete spam-fest. The account being pushed to -2 on all posts is one way of quickly "removing" a lot of spam - there's also a maximum no. of posts per day based on IP address in place now as well.
How does the European Convention on Human Rights affect this? IIRC it's been signed into law here in the UK, but I'm not sure what effects it has on the situation. I think Article 10 is the important one, and Articles 17 and 18 as well, but our DNS server is down here at I can't provide a better link or look at it. Thanks.
If someone spreads the rumour that I'm a paedophiliac (sp?) I'd like a proper legal tool to defend myself with. OTOH, I don't want to consult a lawyer every time I open my big mouth.
I'll give you a quick non-lawyer translation of swedish law (as found by google) here just to get another example:
Point here: The law said nothing about damages. It can't be used as a Make Money Fast-sceme.
If you are facing a libel/slander lawsuit, you risk merely a fine, not huge damages. (yeah there is a possibility of prison, but then it would *really* have to be serious. like an evil FUD department knowingly spreading rumours of health hazards using a competitors product)
All opinions are my own - until criticized
How could the moderation system on /. be called censorship when you or I or any of our ever so entertaining Trolls may read or not read what they want? Besides the fact that Rob et all do not in fact "censor" but the /. readers have that pleasure. Personally, I never read anything below a 1, unless I want a good giggle and for some insane reason feel the need to see if anyone is pouring hot grits down their pants. But it is you and I who would be the censors of /. if you moderate as I do.
/. should be allowed to do so to their hearts content. But by the same token, I and others who generally have no intention to read it should be allowed to have a means not to.
IMHO all those who wish to post idiocy and/or flame
But then again... what do I know. I'm going back to picking my nose.
Cheers!
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
It unlikely we'll see any change to libel laws in the UK in the near future.
What is more likely is that we'll see a similar change in use of language that the media undertook after a number of libel challenges.
The trick is to avoid explicit statements like: Person x is y and use I believe person x is y or It is my personal opinion that x is y. Similarly Company x did y becomes Company x allegedly did y or It has been alleged that....
The above changes to semantics convert statement of fact to personal belief (which is non-libellous), or (the second group) deflect responsibility for the statement.
As a Brit I agree that we need to change our laws. I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me as to the alternatives.
The U.K. needs to wise up and bring its libel law into the 20th century, or its citizens will quickly find themselves inhabiting a Bland Speech Zone.
While this is possibly true, the author ought to offer exactly what the 20th (21st?) Century of libel law is.
How, for instance, does American law handle libel - I assume it works in a way that is more baised toward freedom of speech, but so far I haven't seen any posts which explain clearly how.
This isn't intended as a flame, just as a question, and hopefully someone will reply with IAAL and not just IANAL.
The burden of proof is solely on the defendent. And, obviously, if you can't use (for instance) other publications to back up your statement (not primary evidence) then it's hugely expensive to defend.
Directly following the death of Diana, the attempts to reform the libel law got hopelessly confused and bogged down into calls for the right to privacy for public figures.
People regularly take advantage of the fact that British libel law is so repressive to go after people and companies who would be untouchable in other countries. This effect will (I think) magnify now.
Because the snark was a...
While I consider myself a staunch libertarian, and agree with most all opinions already voiced here, I do find prudence with libel laws in general.
/not/ possible.
/not/ possible to remove a post to Usenet once it has gone through. So the clause in the law, giving the ISP time to respond to an alert and remove the defamatory remark is mute.
Freedom to speak one's mind is a self-evident necessity in a free society. However, we must have laws to protect persons and corporations from false information.
In a world without Libel and Slander laws, the BBC, a trusted news organization, could insist a corporation, say a meat processing plant, had a policy of adding human flesh to their ground beef, for the addictive properties found in Human flesh. News outlets around the world would carry the story and millions of people around the would believe it. One can easily say that the best way to fight speech, or writings, is with more of the same. However, the corporation which has been libeled should have legal recourse to collect damages, if any can be proven.
The problem with this law however is that damages do not have to be shown. It is also unfair to expect an ISP with 10 million users to filter through and edit 30 million Usenet posts a day. It is
It also is
In this case their is a clear right and wrong. The law has failed. And should be fixed. This is where intent comes in. If an organization has intended to libel and individual or corporation, they should be punished. If they can prove that they had ample reason to believe they were not defaming the person or corporation, they should not be held accountable. There are times, however, where this law could serve its purpose.
Don't get me wrong; The law should be re-written. It has far too many amiguities and no intent clause. But it should not be killed outright.
signature smigmature
- James
With the typical /. readers skills in computers, coupled with a shortage of skilled programmers in China, I'd suggest that everyone moves to China and tries to get a job working for the censorship organisations. Obviously as a censor, you would require unprohibited access to the internet, and there are no restrictions as to what you put on a site as far as copyright goes.
Despite Britain's seeming unwillingness to change their antiquated laws, if the large corporations start to get hurt from this terrible libel system they can apply far more pressure than the common man. Money is more important to most politicians than nearly anything else and the large companies who control this flow of money could end up being reform's greatest ally.
1) Well I AM Welsh so I will answer your comments for the AC - but my family comes from Europe, Poland in fact ;-0> . Those funds are because Wales is officialy bi-lingual - WELSH AND ENGLISH. Thats the way it should be. Your countries official language and a language for Europe.
2) Some Welsh do not speak English as a first language. In fact 20% of people speak Welsh, with increasing numbers every year. There are areas of North Wales which are still Welsh monoglot.
Are they to be forcibly re-educated? No - but give them a choice.
Welsh is becoming a regrown language again after the near destruction of it as a spoken language. I can speak from experience here as a dysgwr/learner.
However that wasn't the point. The point was the arrogance in that people should speak English over and above their own - by external pressure. No "Prime Directive" here then. Cultural pressure globally to acquiese to a lowest common denominator. We should be celebrating and rejoicing our differences as much as our similarities. I do not want to be part of a borg collective.
3) Yes and I am all in favour of the EU. The whole ideal of European integration is to strengthen the member states through co-operation, not the creation of a mammoth superstate. I do not want a United States of Europe - rather a Europe of the Nations.
4) Balkanisation? Perhaps one should read your history books my friend - are you from the UK?Wales/Scotland did not join the UK voluntarily - read your Act of Unions 1536/1707. By the way, Ireland is not part of the UK. It seceded in the early part of the last century. But that has gone, it is past.
The new Britain, with devolved power to Wales and Scotland has an opportunity to recreate itself through co-operation on a higher level. Through de-centralisation it is working stronger.
Europe should be de-centralised also. It is the Swiss model of Cantons which form an ideal.
In fact what the goal of the Welsh nationalists (I won't speak for the scots as I am not Scottish) is a federal Britain in which the regional govts work together. In fact, we fight also for the WAR - close integration with Europe is a great idea, and helps protect the smaller nations via the Objective One/Two projects. This is where the EU recognises that power and money migrates to the centre of power, and schemes such as Objective One exist to help poorer economies overcome that barrier.
5) We're not citizens we're subjects technically. But personally, I care little for a "privileged" royal family - so I think of myself as a citizen.
6) Oh yes I agree a common language is a wonderful ideal. Just don't let it be used as a vehicle for cultural conquest - or denigrate people who choose to use their own language.
A universal language is a perfect ideal - just don't expect people to give up their languages and cultures. For example how would you decide which is the standard? Fancy telling 1.2 billion people their language is wrong? (That figure is a guesstimate on how many people in the world wouldn't speak language 'x' - where 'x' is your chosen global language)
Make it a choice.
Let us remember that we don't know where we are going until we know where we have been.
...Upgrade now to Schrodingers Dog...
Our country (the UK, that is) and its legal system is run by mis-informed, net-illiterate politicians who see the internet as nothing but another marketing tool that their spin-doctors can play for them.
The crux of the problem is that:
Apart from a very small minority, Britain, as a whole, is completely 'net' illiterate:
Only the other day, I was stuck behind a lorry on the M6 (as does tend to happen), and I noticed on the back of the lorry, along with the address and telephone details of the company, was written: "e-mail us: sales.ourcompany.co.uk!"(sic) - 10 out of 10 for initiative, 0 out of 10 for knowledge. With people like these running our biggest companies how can our society, let alone our laws change?
Blair wants Britain to be an e-commerce capital - how on earth can this happen when we live in a god-damned backwards nation, where we still harp on about 1945, 1966 and Thatcher!
Our country needs educating - which _is_ happening (but only to our children) - people that run our country, and run our biggest companies need to be net literate. Without this literacy we will have serial litigators like Dr Godfrey and his team of crack ambulance chasers suing every site left, right and centre.
The voices of us geeks and nerds will not be heard - we'll not be taken seriously and we'll be ignored. Either that, or (take Y2K for example) the media will jump on us, bastardise our views and call us idiots when nothing happens.
Our nation, its laws and its people need bringing out of the 19th (never mind the 20th!) century and back into the 21st!
--
jambo
system.admin.without.a.clue
-- js.