Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech
Several readers wrote to us about the situation in the UK that saw the Guardian newspaper forbidden by a judge from reporting a question in UK parliament. The press's freedom to do so has been fought for since at least 1688 and fully acknowledged since the 19th century. At issue was a matter of public record — but the country's libel laws meant that the newspaper could not inform the public of what parliament was up to. The question concerned the oil trading company Trafigura, the toxic waste scandal they are involved in, and their generous use of libel lawyers to silence those who would report on the whole thing. After tweeters and bloggers shouted about Trafigura all over the Internet, the company's lawyers agreed to drop the gag request.
British libel laws are a travesty. To the point where half a dozen US states, including California, have had to pass laws preventing UK libel judgements from inhibiting free speech. There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court - as the penalties handed down in British courts are so heavy, and litigation costs so high, that it's financial ruin for a defendant to attempt to defend themselves, even if they are successful.
So much for free speech in Britain.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The full report is also up on wikileaks, along with some background info.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations%2C_14_Sep_2006
Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity). It's not something to entirely rely on, no, but it's difficult to argue that it doesn't help.
"enjoined"
Twitter nothing. This morning they were threatened with being held in contempt of Parliament. That's when it dropped.
Cheers,
Ian
The UK is actually starting to resemble late-communist Central Europe. You can have all the freedom you want, if you make sure you're surrounded with people who don't care about the rules. And most people are starting to not care.
I moved from Hungary, never the most oppressive state in the Eastern Bloc, to the UK in 1998. I don't have words for how delusional your suggestion is. The threat of legal action does have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, but not quite the chilling effect of being beaten senseless or a bullet to the back of the head.
UK Citizens have protection under the European Convention on Human Rights, which was to some extent enshrined directly into UK law with the Human Rights Act. This offers freedom of expression as Article 10, but this does allow the state to restrict speech "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others".
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
The PQ about Trafigura everyone was twittering was Q61, Q62 was in fact the one mentioned in that Private Eye editorial:
Q62: Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.
With a bit of luck tomorrow we will hear how many of these things have been issued (or at least, get told when we will be told)
Minton Report
It appears the URL has an unprintable character, so perhaps linking to the page about the topic will work.
This is a story about the law as it applies in England and Wales. Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland (that famous non-sovereign state -slashdot anon) has an entirely separate and distinctly different, Roman based system of law and no real equivalent of the infamous Carter Ruck (billed as a "British Law Firm" whatever that is) and subsequently no really litigious use of libel laws on the magnitude of those in England.
Scottish Judges are renowned for making anyone guilty of contempt spend at least one night in the cells - famous editors and briefs included. Much to the amusement to the mainly retired and unemployed audience in the public gallery.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Not being the worst is no reason for celebration. These freedoms and benefits have been incredibly hard won, and should be just as vigorously defended.
...
The educational system's not great, either ( my careers advisor gave me the choice of manual work or skilled manual work ). Nor is the chance to vote between the similar flavours of the ruling class. There's a growing section of below working class society, our economy has been forcefully centred around the money markets of the capital and the majority of the rest of the county's work ethic has been derided and left to rot. The government is responding to this by increased monitoring and control, whilst previously hardworking areas become represented by neo nazi's. The country has become involved in power grab wars against the general will of the people
There are a lot of things to be grateful to the UK for, and these things were won by people not sitting back and deeming the current situation ok because someone else has it worse. I feel it's more pragmatic to compare ourselves against the best, and as such the UK is a mess.
I like the weather though. Autumn is the finest, I think.
Try the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically section 1 (1a):-
(1) In this Act “the Convention rights” means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in—
(a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention,
Article 10 of the Convention is:-
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
There is also established caselaw on this issue such as the famous Maclibel case (Macdonalds tried to sue leafletters for libel; I think the leafletters were eventually paid compensation - but it ended up going to a European Court from what I remember)...
However section 10 (1) is balanced with 10 (2).
Obviously in this case there is a public interest in reporting the proceedings of parliament. As a journalist myself I know how to phrase the truth and report the facts to avoid a libel lawsuit.
Video Game cheats, hints a