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."

11 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. You get what you ask for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You get what you ask for by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "hate speech" is bullshit. Arrest the followers, the guy will the rope, or driving the pickup. A human can resist temptation.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:You get what you ask for by dbc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as they guarantee the right within reasonable boundaries, what's the problem with registering...?

      ... said all the gun owning Jews in Weimar Germany. Heck, said every gun owner in Weimar Germany. Which, when Hitler was properly elected according to the consitution, gave him a nice list of gun owners so that he could confiscate all civilian weapons.

      So, you want to start a blog, you say? Great, go to city hall and pick up your permit. Ever try to get a building permit for something? Anything? You need to define "reasonable boundaries", first off. Then, you need to get low-level functionaries in every bureau to apply the regulations even-handedly. And when they don't, you spend days and $$'s on the appeal process.

      You want to go through that for a blog?

      As to whether or not the US government is correctly observing our civil liberties (1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments, in particular).... an analogy to frogs in pots comes to mind.

    3. Re:You get what you ask for by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I will go further. If you are a blogger, you are potentially a news organisation: you are publishing information for a very large public.

      See, now that's how they want you to think about it. So now you can just keep going down that same path and everyone who uses Twitter is now a news organization (after all, some people have millions of followers, while many bloggers only have a few), and needs to "register with the government". Same with everyone who makes their Facebook account public (or, why even bother with that? If you have enough friends, what's the difference?) Hell, we are all posting our opinions on a blog here for everyone to read. Why shouldn't anyone who ever wants to post something on the Internet have to "register"? ACs should be illegal!

      It's impossible to "register" with the government for a blog, Twitter account, or whatever and still *be* anonymous, so now there is no longer any ability to post anything contrary to the government without risking retribution.

  2. Democracy will be imposed! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.
  3. Re:Libel Fines by MrLint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because you have a democratically elected govt does not mean that their actions are in the spirit of or advance the cause of democracy.

  4. Re:OUTRAGE! by RaceProUK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey Limeys, what do you think of our First Amendment now?

    I'll let you know when Congress actually starts respecting it.

    --
    No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  5. Re:Libel Fines by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    You confuse democracy and civil rights; a common mistake. Asserting, however, that "the people wanted this" is patently absurd. Even setting aside the esoteric (for some) notion that civil rights can and should trump majority rule, I seriously doubt that most voters would have, if asked, been in favor of this monstrous affront to the freedom of expression.

  6. Nice! by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:OUTRAGE! by Psyborgue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thankfully, in our system of government, while the president is free to hold such a belief, he does not actually have the power to enforce it, and either does congress short of amending the constitution.

  8. Re:OUTRAGE! by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I personally think freedom of the press is really important, but that you do not have a right to publish lies.

    The really nice thing about the right to publish lies is that there are then no custodians with the power to determine whether something is a lie or not. Suppose you're a Conservative who's written, "Obama is the worst president ever!" Do you really want a bunch of Liberals judging whether that's a lie or not? Or suppose you're a Liberal who's written, "Bush lied, and people died!" Do you really want a bunch of Conservatives judging whether that's a lie?

    The downside is that people are going to read lies, but it seems to me that the latter is preferable to the former.

    ~Loyal

    --
    I aim to misbehave.