tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14418636.post4245907726691081518..comments2023-11-03T08:45:55.121+00:00Comments on Stephen's Liberal Journal: Mmmm mm Mmm Mmmm Mmmmmmmm mm MmmmmStephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14418636.post-67013915163548578202008-12-22T08:08:00.000+00:002008-12-22T08:08:00.000+00:00Thanks MatGB, very interesting. I had a quick glan...Thanks MatGB, very interesting. I had a quick glance of the <A HREF="http://www.out-law.com/page-9330" REL="nofollow">article</A> last night and there seems to be some debate and confusion over what precisely the judge was referring to, ie chat-rooms, message boards, blogs, blog comment sections are all different in nature. I can see the point regarding chat-rooms, but perhaps not blogs, perhaps?<BR/><BR/>And it's also not clear whether the point was necessary for deciding the case, and thus whether it actually set a precedent.<BR/><BR/>One for the lawyers!Stuart Wintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14418636.post-50449359194781606262008-12-21T11:41:00.000+00:002008-12-21T11:41:00.000+00:00Lord Justice Eady recenty ruled that slander is a ...Lord Justice Eady recenty ruled that slander is a 'discussion', and that a bulletin board discussion would be slander. There's a good article on out-law.com on it but I don't have the link saved on this machine.MatGBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821264556751176639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14418636.post-14531379060514916362008-12-21T09:05:00.000+00:002008-12-21T09:05:00.000+00:00I think you're right, MatGB, and that the proposal...I think you're right, MatGB, and that the proposals are more about cumbersome procedure rather than the substantive law.<BR/><BR/>If the Govt was really that bothered about what was being said on the net then they'd be suing people all over the place (and probably winning as well), but clearly they're not.<BR/><BR/>I'm all for free speech, but there's too much poisonous rubbish on the net that the little man can't really do much about, so if there was a small claims procedure then it could help redress the balance.<BR/><BR/>There's a difference between curtailing free speech and spreading malicious lies, and if freeing up the legal process forced people to post with a bit more thought and moderators to be a bit more pro-active then that's a good thing IMO.<BR/><BR/>(Not so sure about your libel/slander distinction though - AFAIK slander is spoken, libel is everything else. Even stage, TV and radio broadcasts count as libel, I think, so basically unless it's something said face to face then it's libel.Stuart Wintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14418636.post-81455807774658479732008-12-19T16:41:00.000+00:002008-12-19T16:41:00.000+00:00Smithson is, unusually, talking arse. We're alread...Smithson is, unusually, talking arse. We're already liable for defamation that we type, making it a small claims issue wouldn't change whether something is defamatory or not.<BR/><BR/>It's part of an overall review of defamation law, which is also likely to tighten up who exactly can be sued for what, and clarify who is responsible for content.<BR/><BR/>Smithson thinking that a pre-moderation system would be protection is completely wrong. If it's free comment, all you have to do is take down something when informed of it. If you screen everything first, then you're liable if you let something through as well.<BR/><BR/>In addition, the comments box would count as a discussion forum, and thus it'd be slander, not libel. Way to cry censorship on what is actually a fairly sensible discussion document.MatGBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02821264556751176639noreply@blogger.com