Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Versus Billionaire
Roger Whittaker writes "An interesting case in England is pitting the combined power of multiple bloggers against an Uzbek billionaire. The bloggers are supporting the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who has written a book about what happened there after the fall of Communism. The book is apparently unflattering in the extreme to oligarch Alisher Usmanov, who has engaged the law firm Schillings (which seems to specialize in getting unfavorable Web content removed for rich clients). Their threats have led to the removal of Murray's blog site by his hosting company Fasthosts. But a large number of bloggers have taken up Murray's cause, and the content that caused the original complaint, and links to it, have now sprung up in a very large number of places. The Internet still seems to regard censorship as damage and route around it."
Looks like Borat was right about Uzbekistan
Apart from child pornography, censorship is at best on the same moral level as lying by omission.
The truth will out.
If this jerk had simply kept his trap shut and his legal team leashed, I would never have heard of him. But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I'm sure I speak for many here when I say:
No.
It looks harmless enough, but if you try to take information away from it, it explodes in your face.
We asked Murray if he intends to stay on Usmanov's back. He replied: "There is room on Usmanov's back for an awful lot of people. You could get even more on his stomach, and possibly lose some under the overlap of his chins."
We think that's a "yes".
UK ambassador to asshole Uzbekistan? Wo wi wow wow. I think someone has already done a comprehensive documentary on the subject
It's called the Streisand effect, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Bet he's got a smaller nose though :-)
This is known colloquially as the "Streisand Effect".
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
Is this perhaps the same guy who's famous for boiling people alive: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm
Attempting to suppress a piece of information nowadays practically guarantees that it will be more widely disseminated than ever before, and with enough redundant links to remind you that the Net's underlying protocols were designed to survive WWIII.
We asked Murray if he intends to stay on Usmanov's back. He replied: "There is room on Usmanov's back for an awful lot of people. You could get even more on his stomach, and possibly lose some under the overlap of his chins."
We think that's a "yes".
Results 1 - 10 of about 40,600 for` Usmanov torture' . (0.10 seconds)
I had a rush of blood to the wallet the other evening (due to having had a couple of G&Ts more than was strictly prudent) and went on a mad "joining and donation" binge; I now find I'm a member of Liberty an Amnesty International. Probably not a great deal of help, but it's better than nothing.
This will without a doubt be entertaining and possibly educational. There are plenty of people with power/money who would like to censor others' public opinions of them. It is easier in some countries (China) than others (EU, US?, etc.). There may certainly be lessons to learn for both sides. I know who I'm rooting for but of course I'm not an oligarch.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
September 2, 2007
Alisher Usmanov, potential Arsenal chairman, is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist
I thought I should make my views on Alisher Usmanov quite plain to you. You are unlikely to see much plain talking on Usmanov elsewhere in the media becuase he has already used his billions and his lawyers in a pre-emptive strike. They have written to all major UK newspapers, including the latter:
"Mr Usmanov was imprisoned for various offences under the old Soviet regime. We wish to make it clear our client did not commit any of the offences with which he was charged. He was fully pardoned after President Mikhail Gorbachev took office. All references to these matters have now been expunged from police records . . . Mr Usmanov does not have any criminal record."
Let me make it quite clear that Alisher Usmanov is a criminal. He was in no sense a political prisoner, but a gangster and racketeer who rightly did six years in jail. The lawyers cunningly evoke "Gorbachev", a name respected in the West, to make us think that justice prevailed. That is completely untrue.
Usmanov's pardon was nothing to do with Gorbachev. It was achieved through the growing autonomy of another thug, President Karimov, at first President of the Uzbek Soviet Socilist Republic and from 1991 President of Uzbekistan. Karimov ordered the "Pardon" because of his alliance with Usmanov's mentor, Uzbek mafia boss and major international heroin overlord Gafur Rakimov. Far from being on Gorbachev's side, Karimov was one of the Politburo hardliners who had Gorbachev arrested in the attempted coup that was thwarted by Yeltsin standing on the tanks outside the White House.
Usmanov is just a criminal whose gangster connections with one of the World's most corrupt regimes got him out of jail. He then plunged into the "privatisation" process at a time when gangster muscle was used to secure physical control of assets, and the alliance between the Russian Mafia and Russian security services was being formed.
Usmanov has two key alliances. he is very close indeed to President Karimov, and especially to his daughter Gulnara. It was Usmanov who engineered the 2005 diplomatic reversal in which the United States was kicked out of its airbase in Uzbekistan and Gazprom took over the country's natural gas assets. Usmanov, as chairman of Gazprom Investholdings paid a bribe of $88 million to Gulnara Karimova to secure this. This is set out on page 366 of Murder in Samarkand.
Alisher Usmanov had risen to chair of Gazprom Investholdings because of his close personal friendship with Putin, He had accessed Putin through Putin's long time secretary and now chef de cabinet, Piotr Jastrzebski. Usmanov and Jastrzebski were roommates at college. Gazprominvestholdings is the group that handles Gazproms interests outside Russia, Usmanov's role is, in effect, to handle Gazprom's bribery and sleaze on the international arena, and the use of gas supply cuts as a threat to uncooperative satellite states.
Gazprom has also been the tool which Putin has used to attack internal democracy and close down the independent media in Russia. Gazprom has bought out - with the owners having no choice - the only independent national TV station and numerous rgional TV stations, several radio stations and two formerly independent national newspapers. These have been changed into slavish adulation of Putin. Usmanov helped accomplish this through Gazprom. The major financial newspaper, Kommersant, he bought personally. He immediately replaced the editor-in-chief with a pro-Putin hack, and three months later the long-serving campaigning defence correspondent, Ivan Safronov, mysteriously fell to his death from a window.
All this, both on Gazprom and the journalist's death, is set out in great detail here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html
Usmanov is also dogged by the wides
Isn't that near whitetrashistan? Even more unflattering.
"Attempting to suppress a piece of information nowadays practically guarantees that it will be more widely disseminated than ever before, and with enough redundant links to remind you that the Net's underlying protocols were designed to survive WWIII."
Pfft! Hardly. Anyway one doesn't need the internet to accomplish the "whack-a-mole" effect. It just makes it easier.
but isn't a Billionaire in Britian someone with 1e12 (a million millions) pounds. That is, over 2 trillion US dollars?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
This is the kind of thing perpetrate by evil nitwits Uzbekistan, who as everybody know, is very nosey people with a bone in middle of their brain.
Of course all this is all because Usmanov has recently bought up a load of shares and his vast, blubbery shadow is being cast over North London as he circles Arsenal Football Club - even the club chairman has today spoken out today over concerns about how he amassed his fortune. Usmanov has said publicly that he intends to gain a "blocking stake" in the club. Football fans can be ALMOST as devout as Apple fanboys ;)
Go internet Rah Rah Rah
Attempting to suppress a piece of information nowadays practically guarantees that it will be more widely disseminated than ever
And the effect has a name from when this was first noticed in a big way.
Streisand effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
The truth shall set you free!
He'll soon rebound from this scandal with a book deal, music contract, perfume and fashion line, and will drive around with Britney while getting "accidentally" photographed without his panties.
Sir, Mr Usmanov, I challenge you on a duel. Counterstrike 1.6. You may choose your mouse.
And if you win, please visit DreamHack Winter 07 as can't use my ticket then (http://web.dreamhack.se/index.php?page=what_is_dreamhack)
[...] to remind you that the Net's underlying protocols were designed to survive WWIII.
This is an old canard; stop putting the cart before the horse. The internet was designed to enable effective and economical sharing of computational resources. This necessarily included the capability to share ASCII-Art renderings of Playboy pinups. In order to preserve the capabilities against censors, it had to develop the ability to withstand a potential WWIII nuclear exchange as an inevitable byproduct of the initial design requirement of effective and economical resource sharing. (Nixon really didn't get along well with Hef.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
While I agree that this guy does seem like an arse, I have a thought experiment: What if someone were to make up a story like "I found out that John Howard was taking bribes from George Bush to influence Australian lawmaking -- but when I blogged about it, the AFP had my webhost pull my blog!"? They could manipulate this phenomenon to spread misinformation and people would end up believing it.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
...but the people who are on it. But still, I applaud them for standing up to the bully that he is.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
What if in some other case the information were completely false? If somebody posted your name and said that you were involved in perpetrating the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? And they made sure that the information was spread far enough over the Internet that a Google search on your name would bring it up?
Would you still be an "aggressive prick" (your words) for trying to correct the record? It's undoubtedly slander to knowingly falsely accuse somebody of that sort of heinous crime. But it's the sort of thing that a flat "I didn't do it" wouldn't work on. Most people aren't going to read far enough to find your denial, and even if they did why would they believe it?
That's the hard case. Think it over.
But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
The article barely mentions it, and the summary not at all, but the background to this is the battle over the ownership of Arsenal, one of the big four English football (soccer) clubs. The Arsenal fans (and apparently Craig Murray) are generally opposed to Usmanov's takeover of the club and some of them have blogs, hence the attacks on him and the unleashing of lawyers in response.
Some more details here: ahref=http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/arsenal-usmanov-kroenke-lifestyle-sport-cx_pm_0918arsenal_print.html/rel=url2html-32009http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/arsenal-usmanov-kroenke-lifestyle-sport-cx_pm_0918arsenal_print.html/>
Otherwise why would a bunch of British bloggers care about the business practices of an Uzbekistani businessman, and why would he care what they think.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
But, as this rather silly blogger is about to find out, when combining triangles to make the Diamond of Pantheos he transforms into Mecha-Usmanov
Robert Smith is already on a plane to Uzbekistan.
You know a frequently exploited theme in science fiction, which actually comes fromt he real world: all together we're worth more than just the sum of us.
Just like none of the nerve cells in our brain knows exactly what effect it has on the big picture, they all together create complicated intelligence machine.
Then I read this:
"The Internet still seems to regard censorship as damage and route around it."
I know it's not the context they used it in, but ponder this: Internet has enabled million of people worldwide to communicate instantly.
In this case people came together to show some rich loser he can't mess with their blogger buddy. The result is an information network that quickly provides redundant copies of information under attack and makes the information virtually impossible to erase ever.
The resulting intelligence, behavior and outcome probably escapes the mind of each one of the participators that form it.
Does the Internet have a mind on its own already?
...but the people who are on it. But still, I applaud them for standing up to the bully that he is. Your are technically right, in a limited way, but poetically your logic is abysmal.We are online, the internet is part of our lives and our lives are reflected on the internet. It reroutes through us.
In complex systems, this is called emergence, and if you didn't realize by now that humans are part of the complex system that is the internet, then I wonder who you thought laid down all cable and fiber to begin with.
You can't take the sky from me...
That's what a defamation suit is for, but if you look around, they specifically aren't claiming defamation -- they're just dealing out take down notices under the draconian anti-speech rules in Britain. Secondly, given the author's position, he is quite likely a highly knowledgeable source. Last, even if totally false, he has by his own aggressive actions made the problem worse, which was my point.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I think you mean more like "Made consistent with SI," which is European in origin. For 10^1, 10^2 and 10^3 you've got prefixes, deca, hecto and kilo as well as non-compound designations for the numbers. After that, it goes to a prefix every three 10^6 = mega/million, 10^9 = giga/billion, 10^12 = tera/trillion, 10^15 = peta/quadrillion and so on. Well if a billion is 10^12 then you have a case where there's one with a prefix and no name. That's a little strange. Also with the current system, it is consistent where you append ten and hundred for n+1 and n+2 cases, then move on to the next name. With the other system, how's that work? You have thousand million for 10^9 instead of billion, and so on up to a 10^12 where you go billion instead of million million. What happens at 10^21? If that a new number, or is it a million billion, which continues up to a billion billion being a new number? Do you have things like ten thousand million billion? That's a little confusing.
So it's not a matter of Americanization, more of trying to be more consistent and sensible.
Does anybody remember an article about how the Internet was designed and that it was made to survive a nuclear attack but to do so made it inheritly vulnerable to viruses or something like that.
I've been looking for that article for years but I can't find it
Am I the only one who first misread "Fasthosts" as "Fashosts" (Please note the closeness to "Fashists").
I'm sorry, but my kharma just ran over your dogma.
In Uzbekistan during communist times, a leader emerged, Sharaf Rashidov, who defrauded the Soviet system by falsifying the production statistics that were used to calculate payments. Communisms central planning would move products directly from producer to user but pay from a central fund so it was ripe for fraud by falsification of statistics. Eventually, the Soviet government found out and many of the government were imprisoned or dismissed.
When communism died, so did all semblance of control over the government there who reverted to a kleptocracy. The power to export (Uzbekistan is a major cotton producer) or to convert currency was given to a select few. When the blackmarket rate was something like four times the official currency rate you can imagine what happened - yes, a massive black-market in currency. Privatisation became a rip-off. Although shares were passed out to all, those in remote places became vulnerable to raiders who swept them up in return for nothing.
Given the nature of the controls on the Uzbek economy, I cannot understand how Usmanov made his money legally. He cannot be permitted to become the beneficial owner of a western company as the anti-money laundering rules would force the company to become increased-risk or worse which would cause problems for western banks to do business with him. Lawyers are now also constrained by anti-money laundering rules, so they too could have problems working with him.
But, as a North Londoner with my roots in Hornsey, the football team I am not interested in is Tottenham. For the uninstructed, New York is the greatest Jewish city in the World, and Tottenham is the greatest Jewish football team (YMMV). So, of course, what I really want to happen is for Arsenal to be bought by an oligarch, and then for Putin's successor to kidnap the entire crew of former Soviet exiles living in London, and return them so the Russian IRS can ask them questions about where the money came from.
What is it with the UK and people with a lot of money from behind the former Iron Curtain ? Is it that there's a lot of British outreach in there, or is it that they all flock to Britland for the football or something ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
That firm threatened me/my site also. Bastards.
Xatrix Security - Computer Security news portal
The European scale goes like this:
...
10^6 Million
10^9 Milliard
10^12 Billion
10^15 Billiard
10^18 Trillion
10^21 Trilliard
10^24 Quadrillion
As you see, no "gaps".
This got me thinking about a (possibly horrible) idea for a website:
Set up a site that covers one topic at a time. The topic would have to be something that most people can agree isn't getting the coverage it deserves. The purpose wouldn't necessarily to recommend action - just to research and report facts.
It could cover corruption, deforestation, pollution, human rights abuses etc. There are lots of issues that can become clouded in opinions and arguments - but there are also a lot of issues out there that most sane people can agree on.
People would collaborate on research then go back to their own blogs and write an article and make a small banner ad or something. You'd have members everywhere from tech sites to celebrity gossip sites on the same issue.
The users would become experienced at researching and how to take action collaboratively. It's way too disorganised waiting for people to just hear about issues, and then just hoping someone who knows how to take action comes along.
There are lots of issues I care about and am willing to educate myself about, but I'm not a lawyer and wouldn't go to a protest, and there are also a lot of issues that I would care about if I had ever heard about them.
You could even cover less important stuff like what's going on with the RIAA - what people's rights and obligations are, or educating people on security, spyware etc.
In my head it sounds like a good idea. But I can also think of a million reasons why it wouldn't work and where it would go wrong. Just putting it out there.
It's backfiring on his host as well. Up until this morning, I had a lot of respect for Fasthosts which has always given me a good service. Now that respect has gone right down the pan if they're willing to help shut up people who criticise despots.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
As a side effect of removing Craig Murray's site, celeb MP Boris Johnson also disappeared from the web for a time. On reappearing, Boris has very commendably wasted no time in making a statement:
Good show! Things are indeed looking less than peachy for Usmanov and his legal hit team. Next up, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz?
HA, I hadn't noticed that, I assumed that they were claiming defamation, since the UK laws regarding defamation appear to be fairly rigid, not to mention that you are unlikely to get any legal assistance if you are sued for it and the penalties are huge. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the UK is the court of choice when it comes to defamation litigation.
Under UK libel law, not only is Murray potentially liable, but so is his webhost and anyone else who can be said to publish his book, including the bookshop that sells it.
Also, it's up to Murray to prove that the allegations are probably true (UK law doesn't allow people to make unsubstantiated allegations that may ruin peoples reputation). Once this is proved, the plaintiff will still have to prove damages. The websites that are mirroring the content are actually possibly not helping in this case. Further dissemination is going to cause more damage.
Of course, his publishers are likely to be well aware of libel law and will have made pretty certain that he can back up any allegations he's made. The webhost may be less likely to trust their judgement.
Craig Murray was effectively fired from the UK government for blowing the gaff on Uzbekistan because they were the US and UK's friends in the GWOT. He describes himself as a dissident - still at least he hasn't been boiled alive yet.
What if in some other case the information were completely false?
In that case, I would go to a real judge with a real libel case and get a real court order to legally stop the libel.
I would not employ legal thugs to go around threatening people and, if they don't take to my threats, threaten their hosting providers with Godfrey v. Demon to get plugs pulled.
Going to court and getting a ruling has checks and balances to ensure that fair play prevails. Rich billionaires threatening people without any legal oversight is not the same thing.
That's the hard case. Think it over.
Give us an example of this hard case. The thing is, this litigious and tortuous behavior is mostly characteristic for people who want to take down information they don't want anyone to HEAR or SEE about, mostly because knowledge would bring on other worse predictions and conclusions.
They're rarely interested in rebuttal since they have none.
Also if you were the main star in a recent lie spread throughout the Internet like a wildfire, you can imagine your answer/rebuttal would spread across the Internet like a wildfire too.
In either case, censorship ensures far more truths will be hidden, than lies. Truth hurts more, you know.
If this jerk had simply kept his trap shut and his legal team leashed, I would never have heard of him. But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
There are just too many fools who fail to realise that trying to ban something tends to make it very much more popular. In this case turning what would otherwise be a fairly obscure history book in to a "best seller" is a likely result.
I am in a 12-step recovery program for
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
It's called the Streisand effect, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Bet he's got a smaller nose though :-)
It's rather older than that Frankie Goes to Hollywoods "Relax" and "Spycatcher" predate this by 2 decades. An older term is the "Banned in Boston effect"...
The thing is, this litigious and tortuous behavior is mostly characteristic for people who want to take down information they don't want anyone to HEAR or SEE about, mostly because knowledge would bring on other worse predictions and conclusions.
Such people don't confine themselves to using existing laws. They also lobby for new laws. Laws about "Holocaust Denial" would make a textbook example of such attitudes.
> This is known colloquially as the "Streisand Effect".
Trouble with that phrase is that practically no-one knows what it means, so whenever it's mentioned is always immediately followed with "this is because in America 5 years ago...". You can explain the same phenomenem if fewer words if you don't bother with it.
Route around [the bastards]
:-P
One little phrase and all of a sudden I'm struck by a wave of nostalgia for Fidonet
--- Mercutio was right.
Litigious and tortoise. Makes perfect sense.
Singed,
Unanimous Coward
"... If somebody posted your name and said that you were involved in perpetrating the abuses at Guantanamo Bay?.."
Well, of course ALL Americans are involved in perpetrating the abuses at Gitmo. And slaughtering large numbers of innocent Iraquis for no apparent reason or brenefit to us...
We voted this president in. And until we get rid of him, he's our responsibility.
That's why the name of America sucks across the world about as badly as Uzbekistan.
I tracked down Fasthosts IP addresses (213.171.192.0/19) to enter them into my blocking system. But when I tried to enter that, there was an error. It could not add them. It seems they are already in there under the spamming category (hosting a spammer, hosting open relays, or something that lets spam go through, without even responding to issues). It seems to be like that is a mismanaged company that should be avoided. So I just had to tag it with a new category.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
> But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
Hehe..this works with politics too. I'm just going out to get more beer and some popcorn - I hope the US doesn't invade Iran before I get back.
It's interesting to notice that scads of bloggers are attacking the billionaire; in America, it's thousands of bloggers, inspired by a billionaire, doing much harm: George Soros. I've never seen so many people convinced that we're the bad guy, using science that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, for fabulous conspriacy theories, challenging reason.
Much hate has been fostered by this man, treason, too...all because he doesn't like George Bush, for all I can tell. In a poll yesterday, MoveOn.org fielded a poll asking who they'd rather have as president, Mamoud or George; 46 percent picked the one with deathcamps for his homosexuals (and other undesirables), teams of people watching women's fashion and stoning them for their indescretions, and so on.
It's a very potent propoganda that makes these people angry enough to ignore several important "human rights violations" and vote for the madman.
The lesson? Money can change a lot of people's minds- even to madness, since "A lie repeated often enough, becomes truth". I wonder if *this* billionaire will go that route, or just hire a brigade of lawyers and go back to the party?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Somewhere in the mind of the internet that message was read and a continent wide chuckle went up.
Humans think they're intelligent. Have they looked at themselves lately?
More seriously, the possibility that the internet is already intelligent is quite a fun one and your question is interesting. Even if we did look carefully, how would we know if the internet is intelligent? Turing test? Why on earth should we think that would even be meaningful to such a completely different brand of intelligence?
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
So in soviet russia attacks blog you?
I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
All i can say is if we feel that the actions Fasthost has taken to be unjustifiable, we should boycott Fasthost.
Taking your example; what would be the point? Once your information is insecure, it's insecure. You have to change it. You have displace and retrench elsewhere. It sucks, but that is why security and secure processes are so important in the first place. In fact, I would rather that once my information is stolen, the entire internet knows. I want the companies and institutions that I deal with regarding sensitive matters to be actively looking for this, too.
Removing this information may well be censorship; but it's dead information (or should be). The actual problem with what you posit is that if that information is posted, it's predicated by a crime or series of crimes leading to identity theft. Removing the information at that juncture is simply a move made to make people feel better, as though nothing was wrong. But that's not the case. What's done is done, the consequences should be paid and most of all, it should be as transparent as possible.
[Ego]out
I'd hope that Meg White would try to remove references to her name in association with the sex tape or demand clarifications. But you'd call that "censorship" and call it morally wrong. How can it possibly be morally wrong to remove your name from sex tape that you didn't make?
This really is a knee-jerk response; how can it be morally right? Indeed, morality may not be involved at all. These are both good questions to ask, but there is an obvious essential truth; Meg White is a raging hottie. Nine out of ten guys would bang her, given the opportunity - and we'd all like to think a fair number of left-leaning girls, too. The intertubes have a hard on for her, and she isn't going to be able to deny that by trying to pull any or even all references to a possible sex tape.
Admit it, the whole idea of a sex tape fascinates you. You, and everybody else.
Meg trying to deny that this rumor existed is not only foolhardy, but disingenuous. If there is a sex tape, then you can't morally say there is not. If there is not a sex tape, it says nothing about you that there is a rumor that there is - only muddle headed thinking would suggest so. It only says something about the social zeitgeist. Which, I think we can all agree, really digs Meg White.
"And the message coming from my eyes says, 'Leave it alone.'"
[Ego]out
...that you state it as your own opinion. Prefixing your claims with "I believe" let you say pretty much anything you want, fact or not.
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
No, I think he meant tortuous
as in the way to Tortuga. We are talking about pirates, right?
Bloggers? What? Oh....
Huh?
Maybe he saw what happened to Jeffrey Archer, life-peer, London mayoral candidate and liar, when he sued for libel, and won. It later emerged that the stories published by the Daily Star were in fact true, and that he had committed perjury?
You're seriously comparing George Soros with a member of the death-squad-wielding thug thief brigade of a kleptomaniac government? If you can't tell the difference between people who fight with money and propaganda, and those who fight with bullets and poison, you're no better than those you criticize.
You just can't take it when you're reminded yet again of your own obscurity!
No, you're not The United State of Australia and you're not the 51st State of the United States of America.
Just wishing it doesn't make it so. I know how much that hurts you, but life is cruel and Australians is all you are and always will be.
Aqua Teen Hunger Force? :)
You might raise a discussion with your friend about the difference between "England" and "UK" next time you chat as well - Scotland, for example, has a different legal system to England, yet both are part of the UK...
The case Godfrey v. Demon Internet is itself a case that reeks strongly of stupidity. In that case, an ISP refused to remove usenet postings falsely pretending to be from Mr. Godfrey. The ISP pretended they had no responsibility, because the defamation act does not apply to those who merely relay information like e.g., newspaper vendors. When this was struck down, the ISP found a batch of other messages with forged sender ids, pretending they were from Mr. Godfrey and alleged these messages were provoking. They wanted to have their responsibility reduced because of the alleged provocation. Through this step, they made the process much, much more costly, and in the end they had to pay for it all.
The ISP of course also claimed freedom of speech. They forgot to say who's speech. If the articles i question were actually from Mr. Godfrey, he has the the right to cancel them. The Usenet software has automated mechanisms he could have used. In order to claim freedom of speech for anybody else, they automatically were claiming the right to falsely write under the name of somebody else.
I think the legal systems in nearly all countries could be said to have several layers. In some countries it is pretended that every decision is a carefull but strict application of the statutes. However, any half-witted person can see that there is a great selectivity in how the statutes are applied and how the circumstances of a case are found to fit descriptions, or what labels apply to them. Therefore there is a second layer which could be said to consist of mostly "common sense" and "public interest", although this second layer is also often abused, perhaps out of stupidity, producing decisions that sometimes more than border to the mock trials.
However, a reasonable application of common sense and public interest should make it very clear that in absense of any editor, as the Usenet is designed to run entirely without any top-down control, then the human owners of the participating computers must be required to assist in limiting the damage. Society cannot, or at least should not, allow any important damage to persist just because of a technicality not foreseen by the lawmakers. I think that is why the judge made the ISP a "publisher" in the Godfree v Demon case.
This question should be entirely different in the present case, where there is a clearly identifiable and named responsible person behind the allegedly defamating articles. In the present case the articles are entirely under control of Craig Murray, and Fasthost's decision is interfering with his freedom of speech. I guess that if a storehouse chain decided not to carry The Guardian on a particular day because of potential liability for an alledgedly defamating article, the chain could be sued and would be likely to have to pay damages to The Guardian.
What remains disturbing is, that if Fasthost had decided to ask Usmanov's people to turn to Murray himself with their request, there is no guarantee that all judges would side with Fasthost. While I am damn sure that my analysis is correct (even I don't know the law), I am also damn sure that only a small majority of the judges have the brain to analyse the case correctly. (That is, a large minority does not.) Even the little I have seen quoted from the British defamation law, makes it appear like the law carries a list of circumstances when contributors to the publishing of a defamation are not to be held liable, while it fails to say explicitly why. It seems to happen over and over again, that because judges cannot be relied on to interpret overly general principles, the laws are written with lists of more specific nature, and the principle behind the list is not mentioned at all. I think this way of writing laws could be improved.
I have not read the actual text of the Godfrey v Demon decision, and I do not know if the decision makes it very clear why it found that the ISP is a publisher. In
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
The day the Internet is forcibly censored will be a VERY VERY VERY sad day for the entire world.
the correct action would be to sue for libel in court and get the perpetrators to pay and organise the retraction. It has long been a principle (in the UK) that the size and prominence of the retraction should match that of the original (eg as in Newspapers). I'd like to say that is always applied, but I'm not sure I can...
if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -