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."
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.
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?
At least on matters of freedom of the press, I agree with you.
Hey Limeys, what do you think of our First Amendment now?
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
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.
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.
You do know that the First Amendment has been eroded to the point of irrelevance right? There are so many exceptions, ifs, buts etc in various pieces of legislation that "The First Amendment" nothing more than a drunken 4th of July trailer park war cry. Your smugness when referring to TFA is as funny as it is worrying.
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.
I think that like the rest of your constitution, it sounds great in theory. In practice your constitution means almost nothing, and was described as "just a piece of paper" by one of your recent presidents.
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.
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.
Like what exceptions? 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. Short of intellectual property and direct, imminent, incitement to violence, there are no significant restrictions. Even defamation is a tort, while in many countries, it's a criminal act.
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
He couldn't have really been one of our presidents. Nobody seems to have voted for him.
Just another Zombie invasion. We're getting a bit used to them.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
We are not even pretending to be a free, open, and democratic society anymore?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Check out which media mogul is leading the charge against these laws in both the UK and Australia... Rupert. I'm guessing that most of the stories in the MSM against these reforms are being led by News Ltd.
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.
That's why we have the supreme court. It would be nice like, in France, the equivalent of the supreme court went over legislation before it became law, but the system still works here. A bad law gets torn apart until it's good. The communications decency act being a good one. Section 530 is a good thing.
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.
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?
At least as far as freedom of speech goes, US is still way ahead of most European countries, even with all the erosion of rights that has been going on. At least Americans don't have that ridiculous notion of "hate speech".
(I am not an American)
A bad law gets torn apart until it's good.
Like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the endless ways in which it is twisted and abused.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
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'.
You're right. It has been abused but in practice, it could be worse. I've been on the receiving end of DMCAs before. It's easy enough to send a counter-notice. True, you have to identify yourself, but if you're really in fear of being identified (scientology, Islam) you can use a lawyer as a proxy. In the UK you can't even say "Scientology is a cult" without being prosecuted . Pick the redwood out of your own eye.
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.
No. Not anywhere that I know of. Defamation requires a third party. If the "victim" publishes the material themselves, they consent to the publication and have no case. See here. However some countries have insult laws or torts concerning hurt feewings.
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.
Thanks. Now, back in your Freedom Cage, two miles away.
I'm from Belgium and that story sounds very weird. I'm pretty sure there is more to the story than just ripping up a Koran. The guy already had a jail-sentence in the past for arson. The links you provide also point to extreme-right wing blogs. Supposedly, he went to a 'small rally' and went into a bar afterwards where he got into a fight with 12 Arabs who threw a Koran at him, which he ripped up. This story did not get picked up by the press here. If this really is what happened "dude shocks Arabs by ripping Koran, goes to jail for disrespecting their culture", it would have been all over the news here.
I don't know what that 'small rally' was about, but this has the neo-nazi smell all over it.
I know the problem. However, if something demonstrably false has been said about you or your organisation, you should be able to seek redress. The people reading lies thing is truly toxic, and this should be very clear to an American for the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war.
Now you will tell me something about how this can be used to silence people, because trials are costly. This is true, but a uniquely American problem (and a national disgrace of yours).
First Amendment? It's continuously being whittled away.
I'll just leave this example here.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Citation needed.
I think we should do what Canada does - make it the law that if you're specifically calling your media "news", then it MUST be the truth. Tell all the lies you want, you just can't call it "news".
Although, don't identify the donkey, otherwise you'll violate UK press law in another way.
The notion of "hate crime" is not fundamentally wrong. It differentiates on the basis of motive, but this is a very common distinction in law, and there are many instances where it is applied. Consider the difference between murder and manslaughter, for example.
Oh no, out of mod points.
Why should those be the only two options?
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
I *can* say Scientology has the behaviour of a cult in UK because that is directly quoting a High Court judge.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
First degree murder isn't extra punishment for motive - it's extra punishment for the act of premeditation.
You're right, and I should have been more precise. But, either way, it is extra punishment for "thought", not for action.
You'll never know for sure what someone's motives really are.
You can make a pretty good guess when they explicitly state them, though.
So it's OK to say something in the UK as long as a High Court judge says it first? And you don't see a problem with that?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Unless they make their motives abundantly clear in the process of committing the crime.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
The link you gave indicated he was given a police summons, but that CPS had made no determination at the time of publication. He may or may not have been prosecuted. Given the fact he was unnamed, I didn't find the result of the incident. But there are piles of reports of it when it happened, including a slashdot story.
One over-enthusiastic police officer doesn't make it a conviction.
Learn to love Alaska
A guy who made obscene porn in CA was convicted in FL for obscinity. He was never there, and did nothing obscene there, other than sell something in CA that made it to a location where someone bought some obscene porn, only to find it was obscene. All for making a recording of a legal act. Does that not count as an exception?
Learn to love Alaska
Oh, and I read: People who start fights get arrested.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
"Free speech zones" are limiting the right to freedom of movement, not the right to freedom of speech. They're bad, but irrelevant in the context of this discussion.
It's unfortunate that we call these things "hate crimes," because now it seems like simple hatred qualifies one for extra prosecutorial attention. In the U.S., the seminal hate crime was lynching. On the face of it, to the casual observer, lynching would seem like a simple murder—mob murder, perhaps. But it's more than that. Lynching was a punishment given to "uppity" blacks, and it's purpose was not merely to punish, rightly or wrongly, any particular individual but to terrorize an entire population. Lynching was meant as a public spectacle to keep the black community in line. Now, in a sane state, this would be a crime; but, back in the day, Southern law enforcement and Southern juries would look the other way and tacitly support lynching. That's why the federal government got involved. Otherwise, since simple murders are the province of the states, under our constitution, the federal government would have no business prosecuting. The federal government created this "hate crime" as a means of expanding its jurisdiction.
Essentially, properly conceived, a "hate crime" is a kind of terrorism—and it's bona fide terrorism, in this case. It's using egregious violence to intimidate a civilian population. It think, however, that prosecutors today, eager for publicity, pull out the "hate crime" card at every opportunity; and a gullible and uncritical public more or less eats it up. It's being used in too many instances. It's being misused.
Let's say two men, one black and one white, get into a bar fight. The white man is the instigator and gets the best of the black man. The cops come and arrest the white man for assault. Okay, that sounds about right. Now, let's just suppose that, in the course of the fight, the white man directs a rather unkind, racially charged epithet towards the black man. That's not nice. But, in most circumstances, it's a long way away from an action that terrorizes an entire community.
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with extending the notion of hate crimes to simple prejudice—or even gross rudeness. In most cases, even though there may be "hate," we should not be treating it as a separate crime.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
[The Constitution] was described as "just a piece of paper" by one of your recent presidents.
The interesting thing was that has been discredited, but never denied.
Learn to love Alaska
Premeditation is thinking. It's extra punishment for thoughts. That's thought-crime.
Learn to love Alaska
"Obama is the worst president ever!" Do you really want a bunch of Liberals judging whether that's a lie or not?
That statement *can't* be a lie. Why? Because it's obviously an opinion. "I believe Obama is the worst president ever" is the implied sentiment, which is explicitly opinion, and only a lie if the person thinks Obama isn't the worst, but evaluating his opinion is impossible with current tech.
The downside is that people are going to read lies, but it seems to me that the latter is preferable to the former.
All lies would be acceptable? Fraud, medical malpractice, and such should be legally protected acts?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Please re-read. Verbal fight until the Muslims threw the Koran at him (that is, they assault him). He *responds* but ripping Koran up (not by assaulting them). Who goes to jail? not the guys initiating the assault.
Then we have the case of "The Innocence of Muslims" film. It is actually relatively factually correct (actually more so than many Hollywood productions) - even if the production values were lousy. Who goes to jail, a guy in the US exercising his First Amendment Rights. Meanwhile both the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama Administration exploit the film for their own ends (the latter to deflect attention from their criminal gun-running to Al Qaeda affiliated groups in Benghazi; and you thought "Fast n Furious" to drug-lord enemies was a one off). Citation: http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/
Then we have the case in Spain of a young film maker (Imran Firasat) being persecuted by the Spanish Government for making an historically accurate film about Mohammed. He is being chucked out of the country where he will almost certainly be killed. So much for political asylum for truth speakers in the EU. Citation: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/03/sharia-in-action-in-spain-muhammad-filmmaker-to-be-prosecuted-after-muslims-complain-to-government-a.html
This is the 'stealth jihad' that is far far more insidious than the kinetic jihad. It is slowly but surely changing free societies where one cannot speak *facts and truth* about Islam without being prosecuted. Worse, we have people like yourself that can't even read and see the problem with who gets prosecuted for what. The published 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is coming along nicely. Most people are worried about a resurgence of neo-nazis when it is the rise of the totalitarian Left and their Islamist allies that is proceeding to crush individual liberties like unfettered Free Speech. Political Correctness in particular is strangling the Free World.
So wisen up please people. There is a war on for our culture and liberties. The mainstream media and political elites are lying to you (both progressive and conservative politicians). Your rights are being eroded due to misguided political correctness and the slow 'stealth jihad' of the OIC. Learn to read the news critically and correctly - Islam is on the march across the globe. Whether or not you want it in your neck of the woods it is coming. Your choices under Islam are: be killed, submit, or be discriminated against as a second-class dhimmi. You have one other choice: resist and fight for free speech and liberty.
Basically you're admitting they assaulted him after which he performed an act of speech by ripping up the Qur'an. The assault gets let go and the speech gets prosecuted. You defend this by saying "Well. He was a really bad nasty guy and he allegedly did some nasty thing in the past... also some nasty people keep repeating this story". And you don't see anything wrong with this. It doesn't matter what the person's political affiliation is. He's still entitled to exercise his free speech rights. Disrespecting religion is not a crime.
That is what courts and libel laws are for. If I say "Mr LoyalOpposition [including real name] is a paedophile, and I have proof (which I'll share later!)" and publish that sentiment somewhere prominent (such as on a well known blog site or on the front page of a newspaper), you would quite rightly be very cross. You would feel that I have attacked you, and that you want me to stop. You can take me to a court and charge me with libel, in the hope of a) getting the court to rule officially that I am talking nonsense, and b) perhaps get some sort of justice or recompense.
In the UK over the last few decades, our press has been practising serious criminal acts with impunity. The rap sheet include eavesdropping, hacking, theft, breaking and entering, bribery of officials, intimidation, and even one particularly murky murder case which one paper has been far too involved in. And these crimes were committed by a spread of different institutions, including all political spectra and some "quality" papers which should have known better. The new regulator is intended to give people a chance to pursue complaints against the press (including, obviously many complaints that fall short of the above) without needing to drag the whole affair in front of a judge. Which seems like a good idea- are we really saying we'd rather journalists be dragged into a formal court every few months, instead of being given a chance at arbitration by an independent body first?
As far as I can tell at first reading, TFA seems to misrepresent Clause 21A. From my reading, it appears that this is not introducing "massive new fines"- these are existing fines, which the bill is explicitly EXEMPTING news organisations from where they have already been punished by their independent regulator. To quote the minister Maria Miller from the Hansard records:
The first group of amendments relates to exemplary damages. It will perhaps be helpful to the House to explain their effect. Exemplary damages are already available, as I am sure hon. Members know, under common law. They are, however, very rare, and reservedfor the most serious cases. They are designed to punish only where there is no alternative. That general position will not change, but the new scheme will change the position for relevant publishers in certain types of cases relating to the media, namely: defamation, misuse of private information, breach of confidence and harassment. They would give effect to the recommendation in Lord Justice Leveson’s report that exemplary damages should be put on a statutory footing for media cases, with the aim of incentivising publishers to join the regulator.
Here is where knowledge of the law will help. There is a huge difference between an opinion and a fact. Saying "Obama is the worst president ever" is an opinion and not subject to libel claims. Saying "Obama rapes women" is a lie and subject to libel claims. When falsehoods are presented as fact libel comes in. Opinion is protected speech.
"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.
I think his point was that it is ok to quote someone else's statement regardless of whether it is libelous if you are simply stating that the other person said it.
Or maybe Britain really is that fascist these days.
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
When? Obscenity laws are pretty weak nowadays because the Supreme court has ruled almost all of them to be unconstitutional.
All lies would be acceptable? Fraud, medical malpractice, and such should be legally protected acts?
Holy Flammable Strawman Batman! Fraud and malpractice are ACTIONS not STATEMENTS. What he's saying is that no STATEMENTS should be illegal. Fraud is an action.
Example: I can tell you I'm a doctor all day long (I'm not really, so that's the lie). This should not be illegal. The moment I cut you open with a scalpel under that pretense however, then you have a crime.
Other example: I can tell you I have a killer investment strategy all I want (I don't, so that's the lie). If I take your money for my plan and run to the Bahamas, that's an action. That's illegal.
the moral fibre of a Bangkok pimp
Hey, pimps are a noble group of professionals responding to legitimate market needs.
Cameron's just a @#!$&%.
you sure overreacted to it, just like Hitler would have.
NOW we've been properly Godwinned.
So, lying so someone gives you something is an "action" when lying just to hurt someone isn't an "action"?
Nope, I don't get it. You'll have to explain the difference
Learn to love Alaska
No. Lying is not an action in either case. Taking the money is an action. Cutting someone with a scalpel is an action.
The point is that the lying causes no damages. It is the action that follows the lie that causes the damages, so that is what should be (and in the US is) illegal. If there is no damage, why should there be a crime?
2009 recent enough? Or are you just grumpy that you don't live in the country you thought you did? He lost his last appeal in 2009, and served about 3 years in prison. What, you hadn't heard of Max Hardcore? Yes, you can be sent to federal PMITA prison for "speech" if it's obscene somewhere in the US, anywhere in the US. I heard about it in the news, but I didn't use Fox News for my sole source of news. Heck, even if you read Slashdot you'd have seen it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/10/0140245/appeals-court-rules-on-internet-obscenity-standards
http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2008/jun/05/jurors-obscenity-trial-have-stalled-deciding-verdi-ar-136728/
Learn to love Alaska
Is emotional harm "damage"?
Learn to love Alaska
Not in most cases (life sucks and then you die, get over it). Even where it is, the damage should be proven if there's going to be a penalty. Unless damage can be proven, then there still should be no crime.
In short, the STATEMENT should never be illegal in and of itself. Causing damage (of various kinds) should be, but the damage should also be demonstrable.
So the adult who lied to a mentally ill minor with the intent to harm, and convinced the child to commit suicide didn't cause harm because emotional harm isn't harm?
I guess bruises aren't harm either, as they are just pain without damage, and generally heal to 100%, so no demonstrable damage, right?
Learn to love Alaska
So the adult who lied to a mentally ill minor with the intent to harm, and convinced the child to commit suicide didn't cause harm because emotional harm isn't harm?
You are aware of the substantial difference between the words MOST and ALL, aren't you? Stop jerking the strawman around.
I guess bruises aren't harm either, as they are just pain without damage, and generally heal to 100%, so no demonstrable damage, right?
I guess you don't know what a bruise is if you think it's "just pain without damage."
I see you like strawmen the way some people like cocaine. A little too much.
You are aware of the substantial difference between the words MOST and ALL, aren't you? Stop jerking the strawman around.
If you'd stop dancing around the issue, I wouldn't be jerking the strawman around, trying to get a straight answer out of you.
Learn to love Alaska
I didn't dance around the issue. I gave a very straight forward answer. Most cases of emotional harm do not constitute damage. Some do, most do not. It's pretty fucking simple.
If I say in public that Santa Claus was killed in a car crash, it doesn't matter how many children's dreams I crushed. It doesn't constitute damage. If it did, you could never say anything in public because for every possible statement there is someone, somewhere who will be "damaged" by it.
Then... Slashdot woudl have to change its tag line! (News for nerds......)
Have a nice day!
If I cared the *tiniest* amount about "saving face" on slashdot I'd probably just post AC like you.
Some do, most do not. It's pretty fucking simple.
Where is that line? Why is bullying and emotional abuse supported by your position?
Learn to love Alaska
Actually, it looks like it's already been removed. I don't see it on the logo or the website "title".
Essentially, properly conceived, a "hate crime" is a kind of terrorism—and it's bona fide terrorism, in this case. It's using egregious violence to intimidate a civilian population.
By that logic all law is terrorism, or is intended as such. That's the preventative effect of law and the punishment it prescribes.
But, what's wrong with terrorizing people into not murdering, beating up, etc. those they fear? (Fear is the basis of all hate, yes even revenge-driven hate.)
THINK! It's patriotic
I think we should do what Canada does - make it the law that if you're specifically calling your media "news", then it MUST be the truth. Tell all the lies you want, you just can't call it "news".
We do that already, they are called "Opinion Pieces", and are the most popular parts of TV, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines and Websites.
THINK! It's patriotic
The point is that the lying causes no damages.
Really?
So if I convince you to eat or drink a poison by telling you that it's good for you, no harm will come to you?
If I purger myself in court, and get you wrongly convicted of murder, no-harm, no-foul?
If I convince your spouse that you've been cheating, all's still good?
If I lie to your professor that you've been cheating, he fails you, and you get expelled, you are not harmed?
If I lie to your employer saying you've stolen corporate secrets, so they fire and prosecute you, and you can never get another good paying job, it must be that it's all good because lying causes no damages?
If I call you a pedophile, get you put on the sex offender registry, your neighbors get you kicked out of your house, and you cannot find a place to live, I suppose you are not harmed.
If you make a product, and I create a rumor that results in a 50% drop in sales, I suppose your business is not harmed.
If you are a politician, and I lie about you demanding kickbacks, so you loose the election, no one is harmed at all?
Ask the young girl who's wrongly believed to be a slut if lying causes no damages.
Ask the investors who lost all their money to a scam if lying causes no damages.
And before you say that it was the actions that came after the lie that caused the damage, realize that in the case of a scam, it isn't the taking of the money that caused the harm either, if you want to be specific, it is the INACTION of not living up to expectations created by the lie that causes the harm. And according to you only actions can cause harm.
The fact is that, apart from lying, the liar does not necessarily need to take any action to cause harm. Often the harm is caused by the actions of OTHERS who believe the lie. And that is the liar's action, convincing others of the lie, or at least causing doubt.
In fact the corollary to your statement would be that telling the truth can cause no benefit. A concept just as ridiculous as your statement that lying is not an action. The logical root of these misapprehensions is that you must believe that speech is not an action. This logically leads to the concept that communication is not an action. And if communication isn't an action, how can thought be an action? Which makes sense, because both speech and writing are both just thought in another form, AKA communication.
If speech aka communication, is not an action, then my response is not a reaction to your post, and your post cannot be a reaction to someone else's post.
Even physics has understood for hundreds of years that there must be an action before a re-action.
The fact is that COMMUNICATION of ANY kind (internal or external) is an action and that data of ANY kind (lies, truth or misapprehension) can cause harm or good.
THINK! It's patriotic
I don't know about UK law, and I'm not a lawyer, but I do have an Associated Press Stylebook handy. And according to the AP Stylebook, which references U.S. law, reprinting someone else's libel doesn't let you off the hook:
A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you were simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense to a libel claim.
... When the press reports that X has leveled accusations against Y, the press may be held to account not only for the truth of the fact that the accusations were made, but also for the steps taken to verify the truth of the accusations. Therefore, when accusations are made against a person, it generally is prudent to inveistigate their truth as well as to obtain balancing comment with some relation to the original charges.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
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.