Slashdot Mirror
UK Bloggers Could Face Libel Fines Unless Registered As Press
Diamonddavej writes "The Guardian warns that Bloggers in the U.K. could face costly fines for libel with exemplary damages imposed if they do not sign up with a new press regulator under legislation (Clause 21A — Awards of exemplary damages) recommended by The Leveson Inquiry into press behavior and ethics. Kirsty Hughes, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, said this a 'sad day' for British democracy. 'This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on everyday people's web use.' Exemplary damages, imposed by a court to penalize publishers who remain outside regulation, could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, easily enough to close down smaller publishers such as Private Eye and local newspapers. Harry Cole, who contributes to the Guido Fawkes blog says he does not want to join a regulator, he hopes his blog will remain as irreverent and rude as ever, and continue to hold public officials to account; its servers are located in the U.S. Members of Parliament voted on Clause 21A late last night, it passed 530 to 13."
I demand all nations of the earth conform to the American rule of law!
This is what happens when the government asks you to register before exercising rights. Most think "Ah, heh, there's no problem asking someone to register before getting a gun." And then wind forward a bit, and you find you are being asked to register before you deliver critical speech. It all happens an inch at a time. And make no mistake, it'll happen here too.
Any hurdle the government puts in place for the second amendment (guns) can easily be put in place for the first amendment (speech). Look at the UK. They banned guns a while ago, and now they are requiring you to register before you write something on the internet?
They get what they ask for.
Why, when I hear this term "Press Regulator" do I think of the Daleks?
Personally I think it is a great day for democracy. The people wanted this. They voted in a Government that did an independent enquiry and then actioned those recommendations. You can't get much more democratic than that.
> Kirsty Hughes, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, said this a 'sad day' for British democracy.
and
> Members of Parliament voted on Clause 21A late last night, it passed 530 to 13 .
This is a sad day for freedom, but a wonderful day for democracy.
Rarely do we see the difference, which few acknowledge exists, so starkly highlighted.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Seeing as a shockingly large amount of tabloid citation/"content" is from twitter, I presume this will apply to microblogging too?...
Just another largely unenforcable rule which will have little effect on anyone apart from the consumer... I can't imagine the EU cookie law has had much effect other than to annoy us... http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/privacy_and_electronic_communications/the_guide/cookies.aspx
I'm not sure I understand the issue... If you are convicted of libel you have to pay fines, etc. Just make sure that what you write in public is the truth and is backed up by facts. What is so hard about that?
Who better to disseminate information?
Educated experts motivated by the public good, or some rabble rouser in their basement?
They want to license you so that they can regulate you and thus censor you. That's all there is to it. It's one of the oldest tricks in the government's book. Make something illegal unless you have a government license to do it and then ensure that those who violate the license are prosecuted. While this does no longer apply to the bankers of the 'too big to fail' banks who also have licenses, that's because bankers are part of the government structure and so they are too big to fail and are also too big to jail regardless of what laws they break.
On the other hand talking about bankers and government officials and the laws they break is something that IS going to be punished and the government just wants to ensure that it has enough means, enough of a book to throw at you by forcing you to license so that you can be forced to behave in a certain manner or else...
Of-course the other part of it is the barrier to entry - this creates monopoly, as all government rules, regulations, taxes and even inflation (money printing and handing it to the preferred people) do. Very few people, relatively speaking, will apply for the license and comply with the costs and barriers needed to obtain it.
This is why you don't want government with all this power running your life, you'll eventually end up in prison, even if you are not physically within 4 walls and a barred window.
You can't handle the truth.
From last night's debate over the very clause this story references:
"Three interlocking tests will apply ... They ask whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether its material is written by a range of authors and whether that material is subject to editorial control. This provision aims to protect small-scale bloggers and the like."
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-03-18a.697.2#g703.4
they need another Revolution, this time on home turf...
The problem is not that blogs operating like newspapers are treated as such. Online journalism shouldn't be in a different category just because it's on the internet. The problem is that journalism in its entirety is being limited.
They are trying hard to make this seem like its a crackdown on mr. Joe Average at home with his blog, to cause outrage amongst the low intelligence masses. They are so frightened about being held to a certain standard that the poisonous disinformation campaign they are are now running would only convince a gullible moron.
Wake up Slashdot, you're being manipulated by Ye Olde Media.
Say a UK citzen were to engage in online private correspondence with a person or entity outside the UK's juridiction, and that person or entity published that citizen's private correspondence. Would the UK citizen still be guilty of libel?
1. Create a blog. (should take 4 minutes)
2. Register
3. Get a Press Card
4. Go to plays and concerts for free.*
*That's the profit part.
Um Tor, go fuck yourself big brother
I am no expert on media or British libel law, but something tells me that if Rupert Murdoch and his toadies are fighting so rabidly and foaming at the mouth so much at this royal charter, then it must be a good thing.
All this legislation means, is that a lot of rightwing douchebags who previously think they're invincible and can destroy peoples' lives at whim, are finally brought to heel. No more threats to destroy politicians, no more special pleading, no more backroom deals with the Prime Minister and cabinet in Number 10, and no more special treatment for Establishment-connected bloggers and Tweeters.
Rupert Murdoch is addicted to wielding and abusing his considerable power. He's afraid of losing control, which is why his propaganda machine has gone into overdrive.
Its precisely these sorts of misleading headlines that need to be taken out of the industry. From the actual sodding article entitled "Press regulation deal sparks fears of high libel fines for bloggers":
publisher would have to meet the three tests of whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether their material is written by a range of authors – this would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger – and whether that material is subject to editorial control.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Democracy and freedom are not as correlated as democratic governments want you to think. Democratic governments only expand throughout their lifetimes, in terms of both revenue and power over the people, never significantly or permanently relinquishing that power or revenue once achieved. History shows this quite clearly, and the US is a textbook example. Freedom is pushing against a tide that only keeps coming in, and never goes back out -- short of civil war or economic catastrophe.
Secondly (and most importantly IMO), freedom preceded government, not the other way around. Freedom is the natural state, and in fact, the very first justification used by every "legitimate" government, democratic or otherwise (i.e. in return for your submission and money, we guarantee you "protection" against those who seek to violate your freedom). But the problem lies in the fact that goverment itself is founded on coercion. Without asserting a special "right" to employ coercion as a business model, no government would exist. Coercion, of course, is the polar opposite of freedom -- the very thing that "breaks" freedom.
Looking for my tinfoil hat... not in that drawer... not in the bookcase... THERE it is behind the monitor. A little wrinkled, one moment. (rustle) There.
Wow, it's as if, had the recent media scandals not existed, it would have been necessary to invent them.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If you stick to reporting the truth you'll be fine.
I'm not a UK citizen, much less a lawyer, but I remember from some news articles about lawsuits that a critical legal difference between the UK and USA is that unlike the USA, "the truth" is NOT an absolute defense against libel charges.
Though a quick googling shows that some changes were made in 2011, but I'm seeing stuff saying that you still have to be able to PROVE it's true in court in order for it to be a defense, and that the level of proof required can be difficult to meet.
I don't read AC A human right
We are not even pretending to be a free, open, and democratic society anymore?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Just because they sign up does not mean they are except from liability.
Bloggers in the UK are just as likely to be liable, the only difference is going to be whether they followed the conduct requirements established for the press if they happen to have signed up.
Basically a blogger is trading 6 for half-a-dozen by signing up. IMO
From the government angle, freedom has been infringed, they win either way.
UK Bloggers Could Face Libel Fines Unless Registered As Press
Even publishers who have registered could face exemplary fines; it is just a little higher standard. Look at the legislation;
(2) Exemplary damages may not be awarded against the defendant in respect of the claim if the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the material time.
(3) But the court may disregard subsection (2) if—
(a) the approved regulator imposed a penalty on the defendant in respect of the defendant’s conduct or decided not to do so,
(b) the court considers, in light of the information available to the approved regulator when imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, that the regulator was manifestly irrational in imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, and
(c) the court is satisfied that, but for subsection (2), it would have made an award of exemplary damages under this section against the defendant.
Subsection 3 basically negates most "protection" from exemplary damages by registered publishers. Subsection 2 states exemplary damages can not be awarded against a registered publisher but subsection 3 shows how the court can disregard Subsection 2. Yes it is harder to impose exemplary damages but it still can happen. The other thing that is missing from this whole discussion is that the regulator can impose damages too that could be as much as the exemplary damages.
Basically what subsection 2 and 3 state is that publishers should be fined by their regulators and not the court unless the court believed the regulator was "manifestly irrational". This protects publishers who register with a regulator from being fined twice except under extraordinary circumstances.
The other thing they ignore is Clause 29 which defines what a "relevant publisher" is.
(1) In sections [Awards of exemplary damages] to [Awards of costs], “relevant publisher” means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material—
(a) which is written by different authors, and
(b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control.
A blogger is usually a single person and there is no editorial control so most bloggers would not be a relevant publisher. By the way there is a clause that protects web sites as well.
(3) A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any material on the site, or for content of the material, if the person did not post the material on the site.
(4) The fact that the operator of the website may moderate statements posted on it by others does not matter for the purposes of subsection (3).
That clause also stipulates a list of exempt publishers under Schedule 5.
Special interest titles
4 A person who publishes a title that—
(a) relates to a particular pastime, hobby, trade, business, industry or profession, and
(b) only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the main content of the title.
I bet most bloggers would fall in this category.
What clause 21A sets forth are the circumstances under which a relevant publisher can be charges exemplary damages by the courts. Under Clause 29 and Schedule 5 it would be very difficult to categorizes a blogger as a relevant publisher. This is yet another tempest in a teapot brought on by reporting that only shows the salacious part of a story.
When you want freedom, you hope the rules will be good. When you are free, the rules are irrelevant.
Are you aware of what has gone on to result in this regulation? Look it up.
"The Press" in the UK has systematically abused it's position. It has acted as if it were beyond the law and society as a whole. Having been skating on thin ice for more than a decade, hacking of phones of both the weak and the powerful was the final straw.
Alas, this law is the unfortunate consequence of their own actions. I would gladly solicit better suggestions to tackle this issue. How do you reign in a press drunk with power in a free society?
Tony Blair never left (real) power in the UK. His extremist policies sometimes failed to get traction under a 'Labour' government, but those that he could not get through before are now being smashed into Law by the LibLabCon alliance.
The filth that post here to say British people voted for these policies take advantage of the ignorance of the average Slashdot reader. Actually, both the Conservatives and Liberals promised to reverse many of Labour's most extreme police state policies, and then 12+ months later reintroduced ever more draconian versions of Blair's policies- this time with the support of the three main parties.
News organisations are reeling in shock at the recent announcement by the LibConLab government's intent to include the entire internet under the most draconian regulation of the press the Human race has ever experienced. The ONLY exception on the internet is for lone bloggers whose page includes ONLY their own authored content (no comments- no quotes), and whose content suffers no external moderation. Essentially the definition of a 'tweet'.
The British government set up an enquiry into 'press freedoms' that concluded that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES must regulation fall upon the internet in general (Blair shills will lie about web site analogues to British newspapers, but actually these are already covered by existing press regulation, with the full agreement and co-operation of the publishers involved). After the results were published, the LibConLab government stated that it was essential that ALL political comment and opinion on the Internet be controlled and censored- especially that found on independent forums or alternate news sites. Think Saudi or NK censorship to the power infinity.
Here's a story for you Slashdotters. A few days ago a young woman was given a massive fine for protesting the Prime Minister at a public event. She attended a PR stunt for Blair's dingle-berry Cameron (PM in name, Britain's real PM is actually the Liberal leader), where said scumbag was due to 'switch on' the Xmas lights. She held a placard and was highlighting the sickening attacks on the disabled made daily by Cameron- attacks that have led to the suicide of many of them. So, she tries to get close, and shouts "you have blood on your hands". Cameron's plain closed goons smash her to the ground and give her a good beating. Later, she gets a court summons. In court she is convicted and punished for causing 'distress' to Cameron by shouting those words.
Blair's shills will hope you are too lazy to google this story- and thus will lie about the reason for her conviction. However, multiple news-sites quote the judge EXPLICITLY stating that she was guilty under the distress and harassment laws that British people were also told would NEVER effect the political activity of ordinary people.
British newspapers ARE the establishment. They are all owned by people who cheer every time an Israeli death squad butchers another family in Gaza. Rupert Murdoch is Blair's Goebbels. Clearly Blair doesn't need to regulate himself or his team.
Today, Blair used chemical warheads in Syria for the first time. He can rest assured that British newspapers will spin that new atrocity in his favour. Independent web-sites, on the other hand, disseminate the truth in direct contradiction to Murdoch and the BBC's carefully composed lies. What use is Blair's police state when everyone is one click away from learning the facts about the genocidal war-criminal, and his current crimes against Humanity.
Once in place, Blair's new powers against the Internet will follow a predictable path. The BBC will create TV shows where outraged people rant about insulting content online. "These sites MUST be held accountable" they'll dribble - and by 'accountable' they mean massive self-censorship, repeatedly paying fines and penalties of tens of thousands of pounds, and closing down.
It is notable that the official Blair shill, 'whencanitstop', has the promoted comment at the top of this forum, scored '5'.
How's that "Free Speech" working out for ya? Regretting giving up your right to bear arms yet?
First they register you, then forbid you from expressing your ideas. Censorship coming to the uk. Google TOR
This is a tool a government can now use to remove critical commentary on it's actions. This is like using a stick of dynamite to pop a pimple on your arm, you lose your arm.
Citation needed.
Although, don't identify the donkey, otherwise you'll violate UK press law in another way.
Oh no, out of mod points.
The news papers who disgraced them selves on so many ways over the last 50 years have finally had that last drink - this is a campaign by the less salubrious elements that work for GMG to try and undermine the results of the levenson inquiry.
Guido is a stalking horse for Rupert Murdoch
Can't walk down the street without being videotaped, can't take photos on the street without being hassled by the fuzz citing anti-terrist laws, can't say anything that offends online for fear of the libel & hate speech laws... did you just collectively say 'fuck it' wrt having a free society?
Seems that as registered members of the press corp, these bloggers could have access to more events & functions. This would mean more ammunition for their blogs and less risk for what they say.
In Europe just the other day, a guy was sentenced to jail for tearing up a Qur'an. Let me know when that happens in the US.
Yeah, it's not like in the US you were one Senate vote away from Congress approving an amendment to the Constitution specifically to penalise flag burning or anything. Oh, wait, you were. And that was not the first attempt to get such a measure through, and it was within the last decade.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Hey Limeys, what do you think of our First Amendment now?
Honestly? I think it's overly broad, it strengthens one set of important ideas too much at the expense of other important ideas, and I wouldn't want anything so one-sided on our statute books without something similarly strong to protect those other ideas as well.
Remember, these proposals didn't magically appear overnight. They happened after one of the most extensive judge-led investigations in British legal history, which painted a pretty damning picture of the way the press who are about to get regulation slapped on them were behaving when merely "self-regulated". Somehow, I don't think the First Amendment was intended to protect a right for the press to spy on people whose children were the victims of horrible crimes in the hope of getting a sensational front page article or two out of them.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Godwin's Law was a usenet meme, from the time when threads would go on for weeks or months. It doesn't apply to every instance of mentioning NAZI era Germany. Particularly it doesn't apply in a forum where threads go on at most, by design, for a few days before rolling out of view.
Try again.
This is what happens when the government asks you to register before exercising rights.
Except that, of course, that isn't even slightly what is being proposed here.
You could still write the same things as ever, with the same freedoms you always had, under the same general legal framework. Under that framework, bloggers can already be sued under defamation laws today, with the risk of a huge payout if they caused serious damage.
The new proposals are akin to a safe harbour scheme as an incentive for press to join the new regulatory framework. As for some of the quoted "bloggers" who don't like this: I have no problem with treating the big, organised blog sites like any other mass media publication. Some of those sites have readership levels, resources and organisational structure at least on par with and possibly much greater than typical local press. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's probably tasty with plum sauce.
Sadly, part of the cost of the freedoms we'll still have is that nothing prevents the ignorant from posting knee-jerk reactionary trolls on sites like this.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Of course it applies. It's an online discussion, and a comparison was made.
And your claim that a meme doesn't apply to something just because it wasn't in the exact same context as its first use means you clearly don't understand what a meme is in the first place...
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Of course it applies. It's an online discussion, and a comparison was made.
And your claim that a meme doesn't apply to something just because it wasn't in the exact same context as its first use means you clearly don't understand what a meme is in the first place...
If you're not satisfied with his answer, I can provide another for you. I don't think you really need to have this explained to you. I think you just wanted a simple, lazy, effortless slam-dunk "victory" so you can congratulate yourself for ending the thread. Continuing...
..." would reasonably include how a government becomes powerful enough to implement such horrifying policies.
For one, mentioning Nazi Germany is perfectly valid when the topic is government power and how it incrementally escalates beyond control. It's just a fact that forcing gun owners to register their firearms made it a simple matter for Hitler's government to confiscate them. It's also a fact that dictators commonly take guns away from law-abiding citizens prior to becoming despotic. Most (all, I hope) people don't want to live under a brutal dictatorship, dictators know this, therefore dictators want the citizens to be as helpless and powerless as possible.
From Wikipedia:
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy.
"Genocide, eugenics, racial superiority
Also from Wikipedia:
This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.
That would apply to you.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Furthermore, you haven't contributed anything of value to this thread. So then, did you have a point or are you merely trying to disrupt other people's discussion?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Sigh. Meme. Go look that up in Wikipedia now (because that of course makes it a canonical truth). Memes evolve and change, that's the point.
Anyway. My motive wasn't to end the thread, it was to make a dumb joke. Honestly don't care if you liked it or not, but you sure overreacted to it, just like Hitler would have.
Before Rupert & Company came on the scene
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
...are state-sponsored terrorism.
Citation needed.
That's an interesting way of requesting links to man-donkey porn.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
you sure overreacted to it, just like Hitler would have.
NOW we've been properly Godwinned.
RTFA!!
It doesn't apply to bloggers (and quite a few other things)
"The new provisions will act as the key incentive for joining the new press regulator. However, our new clause is also designed to protect people who are not intended
to be covered by the new regulator. Three interlocking tests will apply in that regard. They ask whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether its material is written by a range of authors and whether that material is subject to editorial control. This provision aims to protect small-scale bloggers and the like. Together with new schedule 5, it will ensure that the publishers of special interest, hobby and trade titles such as the
Angling Times
and the wine magazine
Decanter
are not caught in the regime. Student and not-for-profit community newspapers such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend Jacob Rees-Mogg will not be caught, and scientific journals, periodicals and book publishers will also be left outside the definition and therefore not exposed to the exemplary damages and costs regime."
No you got pwned and now you're trying to save face by claiming it was a joke. That's even older than Godwin's.
If I cared the *tiniest* amount about "saving face" on slashdot I'd probably just post AC like you.
Guys, I am Romanian and this is no difference from your communism period. Absolutely none!
The ORG have suggested an amendment to the bills words to explicitly exclude any "small business" from this law, which was really intended to be targeted at mass market newspaper owners only - ie: those with the financial resources to behave above the law against victims who couldn't afford to bite back. Link is http://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/leveson. If folks sign, it sends an email to three key MPs which gives a specific sentence to add as an amendment to the bill as it goes through Parliament. Very nicely done.