“So you’ve had a threatening letter. What can you do?”
A new guide to the libel laws for bloggers is being published today. Download the guide here:
The guide, entitled ‘So you’ve had a threatening letter. What can you do?’, is published by Sense About Science in association with Index on Censorship, English PEN, the Media Legal Defence Initiative, the Association of British Science Writers and the World Federation of Science Journalists.The guide was prepared following Sense About Science’s recent survey of the impact of the libel laws on online discussion.
To coincide with the guide’s publication, Sense About Science is making available a summary of the effects of the English libel laws on bloggers, drawn from cases that have come to attention since the start of the Libel Reform Campaign and from the recent survey of bloggers. The summary identifies the particular ways in which online forums are affected by the current laws, notably:
the individual and non-professional character of much online writing, and therefore the more pronounced inequality of arms, particularly where people are writing about companies, institutions and products; related to the above, the relative lack of familiarity with libel law and access to advice about handling complaints; the liability of ISPs, leading to material being removed without consultation with authors;
and the vulnerability to legal action arising from the international availability of Internet material, and it being possible to republish old material by downloading it. Reform of English libel law has been promised, and if campaigners are successful, then changes that will give better defences to online publishers and writers may come into force in 2012.
This leaflet is certainly not a substitute for legal advice, but it does provide information which other bloggers and writers who have experienced libel threats say they wished they had known at the outset.
The publication of the guide comes on the day that Yahoo!, AOL UK, Mumsnet and the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) are writing to the Prime Minister calling for urgent reform of our libel laws, and in the week where the summary of the effects of libel law on bloggers has been shared with the Ministry of Justice.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
22/11/2010
Bloggers and Libel Threats
From the Libel Reform Campaign:
19/08/2009
The Laws of Compassion
Whoever was responsible for the Lockerbie air atrocity showed no compassion for the 270 people who died as a result of the action. The bombers didn't give a dam about the family circumstances, the children, the parents or friends of those who perished as a result of their actions.
If Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was one of those responsible then I don't see why he should be shown any more compassion, because of the fact that he is dying, than the compassion that he showed to those who he was responsible for killing. He wants to be with his family and loved ones when he dies, his family and loved ones want the comfort of being with him too – a comfort which was viciously denied to the victims of Lockerbie.
However there seemed to be a possibility that he was not guilty, that he was a scapegoat and that he had a chance of a reprieve based on the strength of his case for appeal. But it appears that he will not live long enough to see the outcome of that appeal, so the appeal has been dropped in order to enable the Scottish Justice authorities to expedite either his release on compassionate ground or his return to his homeland to serve his sentence there on compassionate grounds.
This totally confuses me and confirms the law is an ass theory.
By dropping his appeal he accepts his guilt. If he is guilty he deserves no compassion.
By continuing with his appeal he maintains his innocence and leaves open the possibility of doubt about his guilt. I can accept, given his poor health, that where doubt remains he might be given the benefit of that doubt and be shown compassion. I could understand if he was released on bail or sent to serve his sentence in Libya, prior to returning to Scotland (should he live) for the appeal.
The fact that he can only be shown compassion by admitting his guilt (even if he is really innocent) makes an ass of the law and a complete bollocks of the concept of true compassion!
If Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was one of those responsible then I don't see why he should be shown any more compassion, because of the fact that he is dying, than the compassion that he showed to those who he was responsible for killing. He wants to be with his family and loved ones when he dies, his family and loved ones want the comfort of being with him too – a comfort which was viciously denied to the victims of Lockerbie.
However there seemed to be a possibility that he was not guilty, that he was a scapegoat and that he had a chance of a reprieve based on the strength of his case for appeal. But it appears that he will not live long enough to see the outcome of that appeal, so the appeal has been dropped in order to enable the Scottish Justice authorities to expedite either his release on compassionate ground or his return to his homeland to serve his sentence there on compassionate grounds.
This totally confuses me and confirms the law is an ass theory.
By dropping his appeal he accepts his guilt. If he is guilty he deserves no compassion.
By continuing with his appeal he maintains his innocence and leaves open the possibility of doubt about his guilt. I can accept, given his poor health, that where doubt remains he might be given the benefit of that doubt and be shown compassion. I could understand if he was released on bail or sent to serve his sentence in Libya, prior to returning to Scotland (should he live) for the appeal.
The fact that he can only be shown compassion by admitting his guilt (even if he is really innocent) makes an ass of the law and a complete bollocks of the concept of true compassion!
16/01/2009
Disability Discrimination
A couple of points relating to disability discrimination.
First of all many congratulations to David Allen a 17 year old Shefield man who lives with Muscular Dystrophy on winning a legal challenge against the Royal Bank of Scotland for failing to provide access at one of their Branches in the city. The bank had argued that by providing access to other branches and providing internet and telephone options that it had fulfilled its obligations to provide access for customers with a disability. Sheffield County Court disagreed and awarded Mr Allen £6,500 in damages and has instructed the bank to rectify matters at the branch in question before next September.
The bank is to appeal, but whatever the outcome of the appeal it will help businesses and people with disabilities to understand what obligations businesses have to meet the "reasonable adjustments" provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. Definitely a landmark case, so well done and thank you David!
The second point relates to Gordon Brown. Mr Brown is totally blind in one eye and has poor sight in the other. Given this, is it really appropriate for leading Tories to make fun of his eye hand co-ordination whilst attempting to hit a ping pong ball? Whatever political differences exist between those of us of different political persuasions surely none of us need to stoop so low as to take the P out of our opponents physical afflictions.
First of all many congratulations to David Allen a 17 year old Shefield man who lives with Muscular Dystrophy on winning a legal challenge against the Royal Bank of Scotland for failing to provide access at one of their Branches in the city. The bank had argued that by providing access to other branches and providing internet and telephone options that it had fulfilled its obligations to provide access for customers with a disability. Sheffield County Court disagreed and awarded Mr Allen £6,500 in damages and has instructed the bank to rectify matters at the branch in question before next September.
The bank is to appeal, but whatever the outcome of the appeal it will help businesses and people with disabilities to understand what obligations businesses have to meet the "reasonable adjustments" provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. Definitely a landmark case, so well done and thank you David!
The second point relates to Gordon Brown. Mr Brown is totally blind in one eye and has poor sight in the other. Given this, is it really appropriate for leading Tories to make fun of his eye hand co-ordination whilst attempting to hit a ping pong ball? Whatever political differences exist between those of us of different political persuasions surely none of us need to stoop so low as to take the P out of our opponents physical afflictions.
22/06/2008
Behind the Headlines
Normal Mouth flags a post on the US legal help site Out-Law which reports threats of legal action against blogs by the news agency, AP.
Apparently AP believes that even short excerpts cut and pasted onto blogs of online news content are a breach of copyright.
If the boot was on the other foot, and a print newspaper lifted content from a blog, could the blogger sue for mega bucks?
Apparently AP believes that even short excerpts cut and pasted onto blogs of online news content are a breach of copyright.
If the boot was on the other foot, and a print newspaper lifted content from a blog, could the blogger sue for mega bucks?
16/06/2008
YouGov: David Davis
YouGov has a panel of some 5,000 members who fill in a daily survey. Some of the questions on Friday's survey were about David Davis, the petrol tanker driver's strike and releasing very old prisoners. Here are the results:
If you would like to join YouGov you can do so by clicking here.
A similar proportion support (41%) and oppose (45%) the decision by David Davis to resign over the 42-day detention of terrorist suspects.
Interestingly, half believe the Liberal Democrats made the right decision not stand against David Davis in a by-election, yet the same proportion say it is wrong for the Labour Party not to stand.
Two thirds of panellists say it is morally wrong for the Government to offer concessions and deals to other parties on unrelated matters in order to get its legislation through.
On the subject of petrol, half of the panelists intend to make fewer car journeys as a consequence of increasing prices. And, most seem confident that there will be no petrol shortages as 48% of respondents have not filled up the car in advance of the tanker strike. Only 10% have topped up, just in case.
An overwhelming majority (85%) say that convicted murders such as the Black Panther should never become eligible for parole no matter what their age.
If you would like to join YouGov you can do so by clicking here.
08/05/2008
Save my Kids - legalise drugs!
I have never taken an illegal drug in my life. When I was at the influential age drugs weren't a part of the culture of rural mid-Wales, so I didn't have the chance to use drugs as a teenager / young adult. But I fell for beer and fags without much of a fight - so I would, probably, have gone for other things had they been available.
When I see people who suffer from drug addiction I don't feel holier than thou, I feel there but for the grace of God go I!
I am the father of two boys who are approaching teenage years. I hope that neither of them ever touch a presently illegal drug, but statistics suggest that my hope will not be realised. I hope against hope that they will buck the trend and live drug free lives. But, if they become part of the statistics I want them to have the safest possible experience.
The reason that the Government wants to reclassify cannabis is because the cannabis on sale now is apparently stronger than it use to be. Today's joint may be 10 x stronger than the joint of a decade ago.
Many overdose deaths are caused because users think that they are taking the same amount of a drug as usual. Apparently the purity of some drugs depends on market forces. A dose of heroin may be as high as 100% purity or as low as 10% purity, so you don't know if you are drinking a pint of whisky or a pint of beer!
If my kids do go down the drugs road, I would prefer that road to be regulated by the Government rather than the Mafia. I would prefer them to be able to read strength and cutting ingredients on the package under trading standards rules, rather than to guess strength and hope that nothing toxic has been used in the cut.
Like every Tory MP and Daily Mail reader I would like to live in a society where recreational drugs don't exist or only exist amongst the criminally insane. Unfortunately that place is now called Cloud Cuckoo Land. Drug taking is part of our current social existence. Banning drugs has failed miserably. Legalising drugs under strict licence is the only sensible way of dealing with the problem, and the only way of ensuring the safety of our children as they grow up in a drug taking world.
When I see people who suffer from drug addiction I don't feel holier than thou, I feel there but for the grace of God go I!
I am the father of two boys who are approaching teenage years. I hope that neither of them ever touch a presently illegal drug, but statistics suggest that my hope will not be realised. I hope against hope that they will buck the trend and live drug free lives. But, if they become part of the statistics I want them to have the safest possible experience.
The reason that the Government wants to reclassify cannabis is because the cannabis on sale now is apparently stronger than it use to be. Today's joint may be 10 x stronger than the joint of a decade ago.
Many overdose deaths are caused because users think that they are taking the same amount of a drug as usual. Apparently the purity of some drugs depends on market forces. A dose of heroin may be as high as 100% purity or as low as 10% purity, so you don't know if you are drinking a pint of whisky or a pint of beer!
If my kids do go down the drugs road, I would prefer that road to be regulated by the Government rather than the Mafia. I would prefer them to be able to read strength and cutting ingredients on the package under trading standards rules, rather than to guess strength and hope that nothing toxic has been used in the cut.
Like every Tory MP and Daily Mail reader I would like to live in a society where recreational drugs don't exist or only exist amongst the criminally insane. Unfortunately that place is now called Cloud Cuckoo Land. Drug taking is part of our current social existence. Banning drugs has failed miserably. Legalising drugs under strict licence is the only sensible way of dealing with the problem, and the only way of ensuring the safety of our children as they grow up in a drug taking world.
08/02/2008
Accommodating Shariah?
I am prohibited by English law (the alien law that I am forced to live by) from expressing my true feelings about Islam, should I do so I would be arrested, as another blogger has been, for inciting religious hatred, despite the fact that I am not a hateful person and I believe sincerely in the principal of freedom of religious expression.
During the last ten years or so fundamentalist secularists have used Islam and other religion's rights to try and undermine the existence of Christianity in Europe. They do this on those spurious grounds that my enemy's enemy is my enemy.
Secular politicians and activists have positively promoted Islam to the detriment of Christianity and, as a result, the Ismlamisation of Europe is a real and present danger. A danger that it is difficult to raise in public without being accused of Islamophobia, prejudice or being hateful in other ways.
Unlike Iain Dale I do not consider Rowan Williams to be an Idiotic Priest. I have always thought Dr Williams to be a very wise man. He is a man of huge intellect and an astute politician. As the Primus Inter Pares of a very diverse organisation that could be split on many issues, he has shown himself to be a great conciliator and an able diplomat since his enthronement.
Despite my disagreement with his view, I welcome Dr Williams's comments. His comments have invited a world wide rational debate on this important issue. Had he raised this issue from the other side of the argument, had he condemned Shariah law, it would have led to a political crisis, diplomatic incidents and snivelling apologies from the British Government.
By making these comments that suggest support for Shariah law, Dr Williams has opened an important debate that those who are opposed to this mediaeval legal system could never have opened themselves for fear of damnable reprobation by the secularist fundamentalists, so Diolch yn Fawr Rowan.
Others worth reading on this subject:
Rhys Llwyd; FaithWorld; Independent; London Village; Newbie Anglican; The Ugley Vicar; Our Kingdom; Archbishop Cranmer and many others
During the last ten years or so fundamentalist secularists have used Islam and other religion's rights to try and undermine the existence of Christianity in Europe. They do this on those spurious grounds that my enemy's enemy is my enemy.
Secular politicians and activists have positively promoted Islam to the detriment of Christianity and, as a result, the Ismlamisation of Europe is a real and present danger. A danger that it is difficult to raise in public without being accused of Islamophobia, prejudice or being hateful in other ways.
Unlike Iain Dale I do not consider Rowan Williams to be an Idiotic Priest. I have always thought Dr Williams to be a very wise man. He is a man of huge intellect and an astute politician. As the Primus Inter Pares of a very diverse organisation that could be split on many issues, he has shown himself to be a great conciliator and an able diplomat since his enthronement.
Despite my disagreement with his view, I welcome Dr Williams's comments. His comments have invited a world wide rational debate on this important issue. Had he raised this issue from the other side of the argument, had he condemned Shariah law, it would have led to a political crisis, diplomatic incidents and snivelling apologies from the British Government.
By making these comments that suggest support for Shariah law, Dr Williams has opened an important debate that those who are opposed to this mediaeval legal system could never have opened themselves for fear of damnable reprobation by the secularist fundamentalists, so Diolch yn Fawr Rowan.
Others worth reading on this subject:
Rhys Llwyd; FaithWorld; Independent; London Village; Newbie Anglican; The Ugley Vicar; Our Kingdom; Archbishop Cranmer and many others
22/09/2007
Usmanov, Murray, Freedom and Responsibility
Until earlier this week I had never heard of either Craig Murray or Alisher Usmanov.
Like most bloggers I now know that Mr Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and that Mr Usmanov is an Uzbek millionaire, with an interest in Arsenal Football Club, who has forced a blog host to shut down because of comments made on Mr Murray's blog claiming that Usmanov is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist.
Mr Usmanov, on the other hand, whilst accepting that he was imprisoned for various "crimes" in the former USSR, claims that the charges were false and that his imprisonment was politically motivated.
As I had never heard of either man earlier than this week, I can't comment on the validity of either the accusation or the defence. However, the issue does raise a number of important points about blogging and libel.
As a blogger I have sympathy with other bloggers who have been censored, especially those, such as Boris Johnson, who have been caught in the crossfire. If, on the other hand, Mr Usmanov is innocent of the accusations made against him by Murray then I can fully understand his anger and the reason for his actions.
Most bloggers have taken the side of Mr Murray, for understandable reasons. The fact that a billionaire can use his wealth and power to hammer a blog and a blog host is, without doubt, a blow against freedom of speech. But, Craig Murray has also abused the blogosphere. Murray has made no secret of the fact that he wants Usmanov to sue him, and has used his blog to goad Usmanov into doing so. Because a blog host, as the publisher of libellous material, can be implicated in any libel case Mr Murray was wrong to drag his host into his personal campaign against Usmanov and the Uzbek government and was wrong to put other bloggers sites at risk by doing so.
The easy answer to the problem might be to make web hosts immune from prosecution in such cases and let the likes of Craig Murray and Alisher Usmanov fight their own battles without being able to drag an "innocent" third party into their fight.
That might be the answer where those involved are two very influential people, but what happens when the parties involved live lower down the food chain?
What happens if I post a blog making an unfounded accusations that a neighbour is a paedophile, but that neighbour couldn't afford to sue me and / or I'm not worth suing? My host has to be responsible for making sure that I can't get away with it. My neighbour must have a means of redress that doesn't involve the time, costs and hassle of civil legal action.
On the other hand how can a line be drawn between being allowed to say that a prime minister or president is an useless tosser who isn't fit to hold his / her position and saying something similar about the holder of any other post, a headmaster or a shop assistant for example? And if an influential billionaire really is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist how do we protect the right of an individual to expose him for what he is?
Like most bloggers I now know that Mr Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and that Mr Usmanov is an Uzbek millionaire, with an interest in Arsenal Football Club, who has forced a blog host to shut down because of comments made on Mr Murray's blog claiming that Usmanov is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist.
Mr Usmanov, on the other hand, whilst accepting that he was imprisoned for various "crimes" in the former USSR, claims that the charges were false and that his imprisonment was politically motivated.
As I had never heard of either man earlier than this week, I can't comment on the validity of either the accusation or the defence. However, the issue does raise a number of important points about blogging and libel.
As a blogger I have sympathy with other bloggers who have been censored, especially those, such as Boris Johnson, who have been caught in the crossfire. If, on the other hand, Mr Usmanov is innocent of the accusations made against him by Murray then I can fully understand his anger and the reason for his actions.
Most bloggers have taken the side of Mr Murray, for understandable reasons. The fact that a billionaire can use his wealth and power to hammer a blog and a blog host is, without doubt, a blow against freedom of speech. But, Craig Murray has also abused the blogosphere. Murray has made no secret of the fact that he wants Usmanov to sue him, and has used his blog to goad Usmanov into doing so. Because a blog host, as the publisher of libellous material, can be implicated in any libel case Mr Murray was wrong to drag his host into his personal campaign against Usmanov and the Uzbek government and was wrong to put other bloggers sites at risk by doing so.
The easy answer to the problem might be to make web hosts immune from prosecution in such cases and let the likes of Craig Murray and Alisher Usmanov fight their own battles without being able to drag an "innocent" third party into their fight.
That might be the answer where those involved are two very influential people, but what happens when the parties involved live lower down the food chain?
What happens if I post a blog making an unfounded accusations that a neighbour is a paedophile, but that neighbour couldn't afford to sue me and / or I'm not worth suing? My host has to be responsible for making sure that I can't get away with it. My neighbour must have a means of redress that doesn't involve the time, costs and hassle of civil legal action.
On the other hand how can a line be drawn between being allowed to say that a prime minister or president is an useless tosser who isn't fit to hold his / her position and saying something similar about the holder of any other post, a headmaster or a shop assistant for example? And if an influential billionaire really is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist how do we protect the right of an individual to expose him for what he is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)