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.
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
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.
IANAL.
It is my understanding that the UK even if something is true if you say it with the intent of damaging someone it is still actionable.
Read that again. Saying something true and damaging is actionable if you intend it to hurt their reputation.
It's pure bullshit designed only to shut down speech by anyone without a staff shyster.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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!
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.
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.
Really, the rightwing is the group you are accusing of using the press to destroy people? There may be some of the right that do sink to such levels but it does not even come close to what the left does to people they don't agree with.
Google Santorum sometime and read what you get there, just don't do it from a work computer....
I am so sick of the left accusing the right of doing what the left does daily.
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.
The Left *does't* have the blood of a million people on its hands.
The Left *didn't* access the voicemail of a raped/murdered schoolgirl, tricking her family and investigators into thinking she was still alive.
The owners of the left-wing media *hasn't* scored private meetings with the Prime Minister in Number 10 to lobby for war on brown people.
The Left *certainly* hasn't driven people to their deaths through intrusion and harrasment for profit.
Rick Santorum got a little mockery on the Internet. But according to this wingnut, that's worst than a million dead. Nice going mate.
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.
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.
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
Listen,
I'm kinda sick of this horseshit. If someone breaks the law, or if a corp or company breaks the law - then_you_already_have_legal_premise. And thus far I see lots of people have been investigated, and have been dealt with.
Nowhere is this a basis for turning round and eliminating, or wiping out a free press. Why would anyone be unhinged enough to not understand that MP's and 'famous' people have decided to have their pound of flesh and gain revenge. Only this is a revenge on everyone. Its detrimental to our world and our way of life.
And be clear about something else - BEFORE this round of lunacy, the UK ALREADY has the some of the world's most ludicrous and insane libel laws.
I understand what the MPs and famous people are complaining about. I understand that applying the law is tedious. However, this brings shame on them and our society. Destroying freedom to presumably have freedom doesn't function. I expect more of the MPs.
I hope the press globally simply refuse to sign up. And the same for all bloggers and free people.
We`re all equal
You understanding is faulty. Justification (truth) is a complete defence in English law.
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.
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.
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.
Truth is an absolute defense against libel charges in UK, but defendant has to prove it (in US, plaintiff has to prove the falsity of defendant's claims, instead).
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.
You're incorrect. Truth is an absolute defense against libel in UK.
The real problem with their libel laws is that you, the defendant, will have to prove that your claims are true. If you cannot do so, they are assumed to be false.
I love how Hitler is being redefined as part of the Communist/Socialist political spectrum.... if this gains traction, it's time to leave the US.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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".
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.
I love how Hitler is being redefined as part of the Communist/Socialist political spectrum.... if this gains traction, it's time to leave the US.
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
They have to engage in such mental gymnastics because they're too cowardly to accept the fact they share with Hitler the same side of the political spectrum, flawed as it is (but they love using that one-dimensional scale all the time, so too bad).
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.
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.
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.