You are here: Home Forum
 
Media Lens Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
toastkid

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 21
Reply with quote  #1 


http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html 

Think we are protected by having a bulletin board which has been ruled to be slanderous but not libel. 

I don't want to be tested in court though. 
So 
If I or anyone in the uk sets up a message board it can't be truly democratic. 

How do we set up a board with collective responsibility? 
There are anonymous Web hosting sites but that is beyond me. 
Any ideas?
sir jay de mellow

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #2 
hi dan.

have you thought about contacting craigmurray for some advice on this? he has a commented board and he and commenters give little quarter when the iron is hot. i think he may be worth contacting to give some pointers on this including on eg 2 sentences communicating v similar info - 1 which is legally risky and the other which is not.

would be best to continue keeping this digested info open to us all imho.

cheers fella

sirjay

CJ

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #3 
Just to say that the ruling you refer to was prior to the Defamation Act in 2013 and the Judge seemed to restrict his comments to the specifics of the case under consideration. There are also regulations for site operators under the Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111104620

It still looks a bit of a minefield to me.

cheers


This from the Lifeboat:

 

 

Safety First : Libel : until we know I'd advise all posters to avoid naming people or companies - go

Posted by CJ on December 24, 2015, 12:53 pm

for principles, policies, events, facts and links to sound sources.

Just a suggestion to avoid Dan having a problem until this aspect is definitely settled.

Open to better ideas.

Seasons Greetings to you all - its really no good being homeless at any time of the year, but Christmas...

 

 

You need a nominal site 'owner' who is reckless about being sued. Nothing to lose; no terror of the

Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on December 24, 2015, 1:40 pm, in reply to "Safety First : Libel : until we know I'd advise all posters to avoid naming people or companies - go"

bigbiz/one-percenter scumbags and their underlings. Willing to stand pat on the challenge: "Bring it on, stiffs! Let's see what you're made of. You'll get nothing except McLibelTwo-style trouble, if you try it! Believe me, I just can't wait!"

My offer to be this scapegoat still stands. Free speech, wholly unchilled by threats, remains an essential. One of my mild disagreements with the MLEds. was their - understandable - timidity on this head. They and their families have much to lose. I haven't.

 

 

 

 

You're right RG this would be a good first step but each individual poster is also at risk for the

Posted by CJ on December 24, 2015, 2:10 pm, in reply to "You need a nominal site 'owner' who is reckless about being sued. Nothing to lose; no terror of the"

posts they make. It's something that should be treated like slander in a chat down the pub - which would never be taken to court like the judge said in the case linked to by Dan in the forum.( http://forum.medialens.org/post/libel-law-and-how-to-avoid-debate-7843893?pid=1290227819#post1290227819 ) But this was before the Defamation Act 2013 and it was pretty narrow in its application as a precedent.

The exceptions to free speech are legion check this out:
"Censorship in the United Kingdom has a long history with variously stringent and lax laws in place at different times.

British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[1] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[2][3][4] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[5][6][7] incitement,[8] incitement to racial hatred,[9] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[8][10][11] glorifying terrorism,[12][13] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[14][15] treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[16][17][18][19][20] sedition,[17] obscenity,[21] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[22] defamation,[23] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[24][25] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[25] time, manner, and place restrictions,[26] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising."

links in the wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

cheers

 

 

TonyH

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #4 
Posters should be prepared to take responsibility for their posts if it comes down to it, rather than the host being responsible for all. Isn't that how social media works?
Twitter and Facebook don't get prosecuted, individuals may do though and I think have been. I recall the guy who posted a joke bomb threat going to court. In extreme cases no doubt the police could force the host to give up user contact details.
I doubt police would get involved on a fairly low profile website such as MLMB or similar. They don't even when major media slander people, worst case as with corbyn recently is apology has to be published.
Maybe this doesn't guarantee no legal action but risk I would think is fairly low.
Clueless

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #5 
Hi Dan,

This might help...although I've not read the particulars so I don't know if it applies here...

Source: https://www.wikileaks.org/About.html

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 19

"WikiLeaks has sustained and triumphed against legal and political attacks designed to silence our publishing organisation, our journalists and our anonymous sources. The broader principles on which our work is based are the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history. We derive these principles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, Article 19 inspires the work of our journalists and other volunteers. It states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. We agree, and we seek to uphold this and the other Articles of the Declaration."
 
 
sir jay de mellow

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #6 
frYou're right RG this would be a good first step but each individual poster is also at risk for the

Posted by CJ Y (Thanksou're right RG this would be a good first step but each individual poster is also at risk for the

Posted by CJ [] [Email User] on December 24, 2015, 2:10 pm, in reply to "You need a nominal site 'owner' who is reckless about being sued. Nothing to lose; no terror of the"

posts they make. It's something that should be treated like slander in a chat down the pub - which would never be taken to court like the judge said in the case linked to by Dan in the forum.( http://forum.medialens.org/post/libel-law-and-how-to-avoid-debate-7843893?pid=1290227819#post1290227819 ) But this was before the Defamation Act 2013 and it was pretty narrow in its application as a precedent.

The exceptions to free speech are legion check this out:
"Censorship in the United Kingdom has a long history with variously stringent and lax laws in place at different times.

British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[1] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[2][3][4] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[5][6][7] incitement,[8] incitement to racial hatred,[9] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[8][10][11] glorifying terrorism,[12][13] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[14][15] treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[16][17][18][19][20] sedition,[17] obscenity,[21] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[22] defamation,[23] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[24][25] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[25] time, manner, and place restrictions,[26] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising."

links in the wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

cheersYou're right RG this would be a good first step but each individual poster is also at risk for the

Posted by CJ [