Legal Threat Demands Techdirt Shut Down 346
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this month, the US approved a new law to fight against so-called 'libel tourism,' the practice of suing US companies in foreign jurisdictions (quite frequently, the UK) which do not have the same level of free speech protections. The new law, the SPEECH Act, may now get put to the test, as lawyers for a guy named Jeffrey Morris in the UK, who was upset about some comments on a 2004 blog post on Techdirt, have demanded the entire site shut down due to those unidentified comments."
So much for... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure I'll be modded down for saying it, but it needs to be said. Free speech is damn free in this country, and I'm glad we're going to even further lengths to protect it!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
people crying that free speech here isn't as free as that in Europe. It's not true! It's legal in the U.S. to be racist, homophobic, a Holocaust denier, to be for or against abortion, or any other issue. Hell, it's legal to film sex and sell it here! In Europe, there are a lot of places it's not legal to be any of those things. While they're hateful positions that we can silence by not giving any attention to, the fact you can speak anything without fear is our greatest treasure, in my opinion. In several places in Europe, you go to jail for denying the Holocaust. You go to jail for preaching against homosexuals from your pulpit.
I'm sure I'll be modded down for saying it, but it needs to be said. Free speech is damn free in this country, and I'm glad we're going to even further lengths to protect it!
Our libel laws in the UK are one thing I truly detest and wish I could have what you Americans do. There's not much else I prefer in all honesty, but you guys got freedom of speech down cold.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's not much else I prefer in all honesty, but you guys got freedom of speech down cold.
Well, long as it's not more than four words from a lyric out of a RIAA owned song.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Our libel laws in the UK are one thing I truly detest and wish I could have what you Americans do.
Really? You object to being required to be able to prove that what you said is true if it causes someone damage? Personally I think it puts the responsibility in the right place. If you cannot prove that what you are saying is true then why are you presenting it as fact?
There's not much else I prefer in all honesty, but you guys got freedom of speech down cold.
As a brit who lived in the US for several years you ought to try it before making comments like that. Remember that the freedom to say something does not imply freedom from the consequences of saying it and if those consequences are severe
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Interesting)
"As a brit who lived in the US for several years you ought to try it before making comments like that. Remember that the freedom to say something does not imply freedom from the consequences of saying it and if those consequences are severe enough to put you off saying what you think do you really have true freedom of speech?
Even if I weren't an American who's lived in Europe (amd Asia) for many years I still feel eminently qualified to ask you: Isn't it possible that there can possibly be consequences for things you have not said or done yet this (really unique) attitude you're espousing can lead to completely innocent people being taken to court? Does the old adage "Sticks and stones" really hold no weight with you people? Do you really believe that not being allowed to say what you want make your society better? I really feel bad for you, you don't even seem to understand this rather simple but important political freedom. For all the things you might say about American society, my freedom to write "President Obama sucks" is considered so sacred here I can't even describe it. And you refuse to understand it even a little. That is what Americans find so bizarre about Europeans.
Free to say what you want...Columbine happens (Score:3, Interesting)
So people are free to say hateful things...
And other people are free to respond like those at Columbine.
Is that the freedom American worship? The freedom to cause hurt to the level that people go off and kill 20-30 people in revenge?
Free speech for violence....
I would tend to like to see some limits, but understand why not having any is better than having someone else decide what those limits might be, though we do have limits, on people viewing or showing *legal* things like having sex, but have no limits
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Try talking about how all cops are pigs and deserve to die when there are police around. Try talking about how you think it'd be justice for America's crimes in the middle east if a bomb blows up your plane at an airport. Try talking about how you think al qaeda are spot on in blowing up the twin towers in new york.
In fact, try talking about a gag order issued by the FBI and give details about it:
http://www.daniweb.com/news/story304255.html [daniweb.com]
Presumably with your assumption of freedom and believe that people shouldn't be able to say what they wish, you're against a ban of teaching creationism in science class? Surely a teacher with strong religious believes, no matter how invalid should have the right to speak to their class about those beliefs if free speech is to sit above all else?
Feel free to read from here down to the bottom of the article to get yourself plenty more examples that demonstrate that no, you don't always have free speech in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_restraints_on_speech [wikipedia.org]
No, your freedom of speech in the US is as much a fantasy as it is in Europe. Sure certain European nations ban things the US doesn't, but there are other things where it works both ways- public talk sympathetic to the Nazi's might be banned in some European countries for example, but those countries don't infringe civil liberties with things like warrantless wiretaps. You seem to be suggesting there's no situation in which limits on freedom of speech can improve society, but in the context of one specific case for example do you really believe the interest of society is better served by the Phelps group being allowed to spout the stuff they do publicly more so than it being banned so that people such as grieving parents of deceased soldiers don't have to face it on funeral day?
Ultimately the American viewpoint comes down to a deeply embedded paranoia of government, there's a fear that if they accept that some speech being banned does in fact improve society, there's a fear that it will lead to a slippery slope and be used negatively against legitimate speech, so the American solution is to simply pretend that you have and must keep free speech at all costs, all the whilst using less direct methods of stifling speech you don't like. In contrast, in Europe, we're just upfront about what is unwanted and unacceptable in a modern civilised society- but still just as cautious of the slippery slope problem, and it is precisely that caution that means despite having laws against hate speech in public and so forth, we're still not living in brutal dictatorships, and in many parts of Europe, are even more free than the average American citizen.
The problem with American viewpoints like yours, is that you basically believe America's own bullshit- land of the free, a global symbol of respect for civil liberties and all that. Yet this is the country that's performed torture, extraordinary rendition, the country that has bans on abortions, that's grossly homophobic even at the state level, that allowed warrantless wiretapping and so forth. It's like the couple that appear fine as if they are the perfect couple in public, but where the husband beats her when they're at home in private, the public face Americans feel they must put on, is quite different to the reality of US laws and actions. You can keep telling yourselves America is all well and good and that it's citizens are completely free, but that wont stop the rest of the world being able to see that that really just isn't the case. That is what Europeans find so bizzare about Americans.
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
You have perfect freedom of speech. The government, you know, the guys with the laws? They won't do anything to stop you from saying whatever you want. In Europe, you have both governmental AND social pressure. US, it's only social pressure. It's also why we somewhat protect anonymous speech, so people can say what needs said without knee-jerk consequences.
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
They won't do anything to stop you from saying whatever you want.
Except if there's money involved and potentially an over-the-top cost lawsuit. Or asymmetric contractual obligations. Or fraud. Or patents. Or copyright. Or "think of the children". Or terrorism. Or "national security". Or a verbal threat to the president. Or shouting "fire!" in a theatre. Or...
Face it, the US obsession with so-called "free speech" is bizarre. The amount of free speech available in the US is pretty much the same as any modern western democracy. Yes, you can probably foam at the mouth about lots of things but only problem is, the glaring exception is that anytime anything important is involved, like money, that so-called freedom-of-speech goes out the window.
Sorry, but being able to talk however you like about unimportant things isn't very important. Really. And in addition actions speak louder than words.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, and specifically, have a look at the Simon Singh case.
I'm familiar with the reports of that case and frankly I don't see how changing the libel laws would help. The BCA could still sue him even if they needed to provide the evidence that he was wrong and hence he would still have an expensive legal fight.
Additionally I can just as easily imagine the proposed changes being abused. Big corporation X prints lies to damage small startup Y. Now startup Y has to go through the expense of proving what X said is a lie in order to sue them.
What's broken is the m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
truth is not necessarily a defence against libel - you can prove that what you said is true, and still be found liable.
Not according to the Guardian [guardian.co.uk] and I quote:
There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Going to court to defend baseless accusations costs a lot of money...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is not expressing an opinion, or an artistic expression, or anything else to do with free speech: it is a potentially damaging hoax. It is no more free speech than forging a document is.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or try and bring home some Japanese manga with any girly bits in them on anyone who isnt obviously 110 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't write fiction about child molestation and you're fine, even the US has its limits on free speech.
Wait, what? As far as I'm aware, writing a fictional story is not illegal in the US regardless of subject.
Otherwise, the government has been ignoring blatant lawbreaking as seen here;
http://www.literotica.com/ [literotica.com]
http://www.asstr.org/ [asstr.org]
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Stories I think are clear. However, laws have been passed which prohibit the display of a fictional illustration depicting child pornography. At one time a law was drafted (not sure if it ever passed) which declared it illegal to display pornography in which the subject APPEARED underaged even if she physically was not. Little Lupe fans still haven't been (successfully) prosecuted yet though, so I'm doubting enforcement on that law if it passed is 100% . . .
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
But Oh my god, don't show nudity on public TV! That's just obscene!
Re: (Score:2)
That which is publicly available and privately available are two very different things. Besides, there are only a handful of public TV channels; Cable isn't "public" (under most circumstances); nor is Satellite TV. And i can attest, we do have channels with porn all day long.
Re: (Score:2)
Public TV no, but the subject itself isn't completely banned. Anyone who wants to see nudity doesn't have to look far.
That said, I have seen a few (usually right wing extremists) who have called for a complete ban on it. I think a few jurisdictions do so though. Kinda like the dry counties in the south where prohibition lives on even now.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, California is the only state with a precedent (people v. Freeman) on record differentiating the production of pornography from prostitution, it's one of the reasons that the vast majority of porn made is the US is made in California. When you think about it, the distinction doesn't really make much sense; paying for sex is illegal... unless you film it with the intent to sell the video, in which case it's fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal, I'd wager that the (admittedly flimsy) distinction doesn't need to be made at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the difference is that all participants in pornographic sex are being paid to perform. If you hire a hooker, it doesn't suddenly become legal to pay here to have sex with you if a camera's involved.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from setting up your own dummy corporation and "paying" yourself to perform in your own videos.
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even legal in the US to be Jeffrey Morris, though he will now go down in the internet archives as a complete prat whom you should never do business with.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The Streisand Effect is quite powerful, and there's nobody to sue over it.
Re:So much for... the Free Market (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the fundamental requirements for a free market is an informed consumer with choices.
One could interpret matters like this as suppliers trying to keep their dirty laundry quiet, trying to keep consumers in the dark, keep them from making fully informed choices. Obviously if available information is clearly incorrect that needs to be fixed, but it's also not clear that that's the case here.
Most people have been looking at this from a freedom-of-speech point of view, and that's valid. But there are ot
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not just legal...highly encouraged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats funny, while I've lived in the Great Plains, the Pacific Northwest, western Florida and now Alaska, I never pretend that I know what other parts of the US are like. The US is very different as you go from place to place, there is no "American culture" despite what MTV and Hollywood would have you think.
The government is mostly the same, the banks and restaurants are generally the same and there is a common language(s), but thats about it. Some parts are white, some red, some black.
Getting on a plane in Portland OR and getting off it in Atlanta and going downtown felt more different than when I went from Tel Aviv to Munich.
John Keegan said in Fields of Battle: The Wars for North America, that as a European coming to the US, he felt the great unifiers were restaurant chains and brands. Applebees, Dennys, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Taco Bells everywhere gives Americans a sense they are in the same country. At least as much as the flag does
Re: (Score:2)
Getting on a plane in Portland OR and getting off it in Atlanta and going downtown felt more different than when I went from Tel Aviv to Munich.
Off-topic, but could you expand on just what you found was so different? Not positing an opinion either way. It's just that with Atlanta being one of the closer "major" cities to me (and having traveled no farther north than Raleigh - no farther south than Miami), you've peaked my interests.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every city has its character, and sometimes it's easy to get overwhelmed by it. Finding something eminently recognizable and comfortable can be of huge psychological benefit, even if it's just a place where you know what you can get to eat.
I've been to a number of major cities around the US: Dallas, Chicago, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, New York, Newark, and Miami are but a few. (I know some of them are major more in a regional context than a national one.) On occasion, I've found myself looking for a bur
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These all sound like pretty superficial differences to me. (The weather? Really?)
Only someone who has never been to Houston/Orlando/Atlanta/Miami in August could dismiss the weather as superficial. The basic nature of social gatherings changes.
The culture of "the South" is really quite different (and different from what the culture of 3 of the cities above). The language is (nearly) the same as the rest of the country, but the pace, the politeness, what is considered polite behavior in the first place, the commonly held values, etc., are different. It's more than the urban/rural diff
as an american i say: (Score:4, Insightful)
it's ok for europeans to hate americans. its ok for anyone to hate the usa for any aspect of our history or national character they find repugnant. you're completely welcome, be my guest, it's a free world (or rather, it should be a free world)
but what i dislike is when americans are held accountable for crimes and weaknesses that basically every human being is guilty of. or when the atrocities of the american government are given special analysis for high holy indignation, while much worse atrocities of the same form from other governments are completely ignored, minimized, or excused, including from their own government. not that a crime committed by another government excuses the crimes of the american government. but it doesn't excuse critics of the usa to focus their high holy indignation on the usa alone, when whatever ugly game in question is played by everyone
your criticism must be intellectually honest, or your criticism isn't valid
i repeat: there is plenty about the usa to hate. but what about the usa do you hate? if your answer is that you hate the usa for what everyone does, then that merely means you are propagandized and out of touch with the reality of the world you live in
the full force of your criticism should be based on principles, and principles alone. you will find then that the targets for your criticism flwo freely all over the world, and not along the lines of geopolitical tribal entities. but if your criticisms adhere too strongly to geopolitical boundaries, where what your country does is excused, but what their country does is not, then your own attitude is part of the problem, perhaps even more that that of americans or the usa
and, btw, my words here apply equally to americans who view the usa as untouchable and squeaky clean, and some other place or country the root of all evil: the inverse of irrationally hating the usa: irrationally loving the usa, is equally wrong
Re: (Score:2)
the usa is not the best country in the world (Score:4, Insightful)
it never was. i'm sorry that YOU at one time thought it was
but don't hold it against me that your idealism about the usa was shattered, as i never had such idealism
if some asshole once said to you "america is the best! believe in it!" i'm sorry you got sold a bill of goods. right now, there are assholes in every country: china is the best! russia is the best! india is the best! etc., selling the same crappy merchandise. why don't you believe what they say? why don't you hold it against them that they have tribal chest thumping ultranationalists? there's tribal chest thumping ultranationalist for every nationality. why do you only hold the usa guilty for a crime every nation commits?
you should be mad at yourself for ever believing such nonsense in the first place, you should be mad at your own gullibility
you're nothing but an ex-fanboy, you've fallen out of love with my country. fine. i didn't ask you to love my country, that's your own fault
likewise, that you hate my country is your own fault too
the only valid way for you to feel about my country is completely neutral. if you feel anything else, you're the one with a problem in how you view the world you live in
the little service we did for you in the '40s (Score:3, Insightful)
was necessary because of the same sort of trbial chest-thumping you find to be a delightful little joke right now. so i guess you didn't learn anything from the suffering your grandparents or great-grandparents went through in the '40s. your jokes are their shame
if you want to find a historical parallel to you current attitude towards the usa, try the attitude of germans towards french, or french towards british, or british towards spanish, etc., shortly before any one of the hundreds of mindless nationalis
Re:as an american i say: (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with holding us up to higher standards, unfortunately a lot of Europeans seem to use that as an excuse to abdicate responsibility for anything themselves. Also, while the US fairly deserves a lot of criticism, a lot of it coming from Europe tends to be incredibly ignorant, which was my point, which you seemed to miss.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds a whole like like Great Britain before its empire fell apart, especially the part about thinking themselves superior to everyone else and meddling in their business.
We hate that you push one-sided 'treaties' on us which shoves your copyright down our throats to protect your movie and record industry.
Now this is your own dumb fault. If you don't agree to the treaty, then don't sign it. It's that simple. Blame your own leaders for the treaties.
If you're selling something, and I offer you 1/100 of yo
you can talk about those things (Score:3, Insightful)
but you will be met by a wall of ignorance, hysteria, fear, hyperbole, and propaganda
which is fine. life is raw. i would prefer ugly truths to placid lies, which the laws in other countries apparently prefer
the alternative: forbidding people to talk about controversy, is that superior? i don't think so
as the top poster said, i am quite enamored with the usa's right to free speech
but what i don't like currently in the usa though is this melding of opinion and "news" organization, such as with fox news. curre
Re: (Score:2)
what i would like to see is a law somewhere along the lines of "enjoy your free speech, just don't present yourself as an authority on something when you clearly are not an authority, just a bought and paid for huckster.
Upon passage of this law, both houses of congress chuckled uncomfortably, rustled some papers on their desks, and went out for an early drink.
Re: (Score:2)
but what i don't like currently in the usa though is this melding of opinion and "news" organization, such as with fox news
Actually, it's no different than what CBS, NBC, ABC, etc have been doing for decades.
You only go after Fox because it happens to be contrary (some of the time) to what you've been spoon-fed most of your life.
Of course, don't take my word for it. Especially when even left-wing investigators from such "hard-right bastions" as UCLA have fessed up [ucla.edu] about it.
all media is biased (Score:2)
true
but there is a huge difference between a news organization that tries to be as neutral and objective as possible, letting through only the inescapable theoretical bias, and an organization which makes no bones about its attempts to manipulate, distort, tell half-truths, and purposefully push an agenda
so no, sorry: cbs, nbc, abc are NOT the liberal counterpart to fox news. cbs, nbc, and abc are traditional fact based news sources, and are moderate
meanwhile, fox news is blatantly and purposefully right wi
Re: (Score:2)
Do I have to choose?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. Especially when the rest of the post is basically pandering to the audience at hand. It's a persecution complex - people love to feel like the underdog.
If this site was run by Baskin Robbins I have no doubt there would be people here posting:
"I know I'll be modded down for saying this, but I've got karma to burn. Ice cream is fucking awesome!"
huh (Score:5, Informative)
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Jeff Morris (Score:5, Insightful)
Is a fucking asshole.
Re:Jeff Morris (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, great. Now he's going to sue Slashdot!
Keep your comments to yourself next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, go post them on Fark.
Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Informative)
It would seem a strange turn since the USA allowed a one of its firms to sue a foreign entity not that long ago: http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/statement.lasso?ref=3 [spamhaus.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot meet kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Go back and read the document to understand what they are measuring.
Re: (Score:2)
Still better politics than France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, China, Australia, Somalia, Russia, and the Pirate Bay.
But that ain't saying much...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a terrible example. Spamhaus conceded jurisdiction by responding to the claim in US court. What they should have done was to contest the Jurisdiction. I assume they thought they were going to win and only upon realizing they were likely to lose did they run away to the UK.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
it's even stranger since the USA recently used European legal actions as evidence when threatening open prosecution of a major American corporation:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1726603/ftc-intel-announce-settlement [theinquirer.net]
It just goes to show (Score:3, Interesting)
How mankind absolutely cannot recognize the fact that he lives in a global society, and that the internet is a global medium. I'm currently writing this post from Costa Rica where, as a born Canadian citizen and an adopted British and EU Citizen (my mother is Scots) I hold legal residency, and have for 20 years.
It's unfortunate that the ignorance of different laws and customs among those (supposedly) smart people we elect to represent us and judge us leads to this kind of mess. Why can the US enforce it's own very restrictive copyright laws and extradite people from oh, I don't know, Australia for example, to face criminal copyright infringement charges; only to turn around and then prevent its citizens (real or corporate) to be shielded from other countries' laws?
A decision must be taken: to enforce either the weakest possible or strongest possible law in every case, in order to avoid the arbitrariness not doing this would lead to; or to disconnect the internet.
Re:It just goes to show (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can the US enforce it's own very restrictive copyright laws and extradite people from oh, I don't know, Australia for example, to face criminal copyright infringement charges; only to turn around and then prevent its citizens (real or corporate) to be shielded from other countries' laws?
Because the leaders of Australia went "Oh, go ahead, here he is! We'll even send a police escort with him, and pay for the plane tickets!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why can the US enforce it's own very restrictive copyright laws and extradite people from oh, I don't know, Australia for example, to face criminal copyright infringement charges; only to turn around and then prevent its citizens (real or corporate) to be shielded from other countries' laws?
Because, the rest of the world can suck it!
[cracks Budweiser]
USA! USA! USA!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because not all of mankind lives in a global society. The rich and mobile do, but the majority of humans don't have that luxury.
Nations still exist because the majority of the peoples that live in nations want their nations to continue, they don't want to live in a global society. That is true even in the rich and mobile nations.
Who in the EU wants social laws and punishments to be leveled from EU norms to strike a balance with Saudi Arabia, Iran or the People's Republic of China?
Hell, ask Canadians in Brit
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Quebec if they want to be a sovereign country they go hell yeah. Ask the east coasters if they want to join the US and they hmm. Might not be bad.
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe because the person who commit the libel was in the UK at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like what I have to say... (Score:2)
We aren't going to bend to your will or around your laws when on our soil, Mr. Dickhead in the UK. Don't like my opinion and what I have to say? Know what that sounds like? It sounds like a tough break for you.
Called out for spamming? Just sue, sue, sue! (Score:5, Informative)
The story looks to be about this post http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041001/0941211.shtml [techdirt.com] regarding Jeftel in which the company is called out for being a spam sham. This guy doesnt exactly look like the next Richard Branson :) Jeftel.com doesnt exactly resolve to a legit operation either. Just a default holder page. Is this guy just pissed for being caught out? What a douche
Oh great (Score:2)
Thanks Addlestone Keane Law, great way to help the international reputation of Leeds.. for fucks sake. This is going to go streisand effect, I just know it.
Dear Jeffrey Morris in the UK (Score:2)
You are a flaming asshole. Please to go fuck yourself.
Different motives involved here (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is entirely possible that the lawyers were unaware of the SPEECH Act, but it does seem like a law firm making legal threats in a foreign country should be expected to have researched the legal barriers to making such a claim before using billable hours to make threats they cannot back up."
The law firm doesn't care if their threats are stupid:
Client: I want to sue!
Attorney: Well, you don't have grounds and probably can't win.
Client: I don't care! I want to sue!
Attorney: Okay. (Now with a clear conscience, turns on the clock.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note that "clear conscience" actually means "sufficient warning given to client to avoid liability in eventual malpractice lawsuit".
Note to Foreign Jurisdictions (Score:4, Interesting)
The Internet is not an open-air medium. I am not broadcasting anything to you, as I would by speaking it audibly into airspace or transmitting it into the electromagnetic aether.
I am placing words on a server with a known location. In order for your precious subjects to come across my words and be offended/libeled/scandalized/blasphemed by them, they have to find the server, access it, request the information, decode it, and present to themselves it on their equipment.
And likely their request has to cross an international boundary to reach the server.
Therefore, what I type into my computer that they are not allowed to read in your country is not for you to stop me from posting, nor for you to stop the server from serving. It is for you to tell your subjects not to read, if you choose to have laws that make certain forms of speech illegal in your country.
That's quite aside from the fact that it is likely that making such things illegal makes you a freedom-hating tyrant who can just fuck off.
As much as I dislike the UK system (Score:5, Insightful)
I dislike the US trying to tell the UK what Constitution it should have, particularly as the US has actively condemned any interference by other nations in the US' legal system. (Including, I might add, efforts by the UN to prevent a Mexican being executed. Seems to me the death penalty is just a tad more severe than the UK's libel system -- even after factoring in listening to the lawyers.)
I doubly resent this clamp-down because the US has profited greatly from countries like the UK exporting civil cases to the US where the US' laws would be better for the plaintiff. Indeed, the US actively encourages lawsuit tourism when it is the money-maker. I'm sorry, but double standards don't wash.
If the US wants to impress anyone with this effort, then it must cut both ways. If they want other nations to respect US Constitutional rights, the the US has to respect its international obligations as well. That includes not letting the RIAA order "DeCSS Jon"-style stormtrooper action, not pressuring India to drop all action against American companies over Bhopal, not pressuring other nations to come up with bogus charges against people like the owner of Wikileaks, honoring the warrant against the 22 CIA agents in Italy for kidnap, etc. Further, if they want cases that are fundamentally American in nature to be heard in America, they must prohibit cases that are fundamentally the property of those nations to hear those cases.
The reality is, we know damn well that the US won't ban foreign lawsuits and will continue to infringe on the sovereignty of other nations. As, indeed, will all other nations. It's not uniquely a US problem. However, just considering the US, it is insanity to have these kinds of one-way barriers. That infringes on freedom far more than the libel cases ever did, especially given the sheer magnitude of some of them. (Any one of the ones I noted are way worse than all of the libel cases exported from the US combined.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm still waiting for the extradition of the pilots who murdered a load of Italian civilians. My ski-teacher was one of the first responders and still has nightmares. The people inside were crushed like grapes.
It's been 12 years, but everyone in North-Italy who was skiing in the region at the time knows what happened. And noone forgets it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster [wikipedia.org]
Stuff like this, makes it REALLY hard to take the US govt. serious when they request extradition for criminals.
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
Neither. In two days you will be visited by an old man with a bowler hat and a handlebar mustache. He will knock on your door and ask if you have any ketchup. The next day the same man will appear dressed as a clown sitting in your car. For your own safety just ignore him. You won't see him for two days, and then he will appear in your living room dressed as a devil. Don't worry. He will leave immediately.
After that I can't be sure what will happen, but it will be one of two things. Either you will never see him again, or he will appear in your bedroom just as you're going to bed. I won't describe his appearance. If you're not going to find out, it's better to not know.
If he does appear that one last time, do not fall asleep or you will never wake up again.
Such are the consequences of a first post.
Sweet dreams.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Neither. In two days you will be visited by an old man with a bowler hat and a handlebar mustache. He will knock on your door and ask if you have any ketchup. The next day the same man will appear dressed as a clown sitting in your car. For your own safety just ignore him. You won't see him for two days, and then he will appear in your living room dressed as a devil. Don't worry. He will leave immediately.
Well, those are the most accurate descriptions of the Slashdot editors I've heard. And it sounds like they are really stepping up their anti-First Post campaign.
Straight from simple filters all the way to the handlebar clown devil treatment. No intermediary steps at all. Now that's how things get done on the internet!
Re:2004? No statute of limitations in the UK? (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure but I do know our libel laws here are in desperate need of overhaul, and many are campaigning for this. We have one of (if not, the) highest libel costs in the whole of Europe, making us a very attractive place for libel tourism, as often is the case whether you're guilty or not doesn't matter, merely defending the court action can be enough to bankrupt you, especially if it's against somebody who has the money to throw at it. I know that can be true in many areas of law, but such is the cost of defending libel cases here in the UK, that the effect is far more exaggerated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but sadly part the reason we have such a fucked up libel system though is because we have a press that's historically been allowed to get away with basically just outright lying about people in their publications and never having to post a retractment, hence why we got tough libel laws to counter that.
I want the libel laws reformed as much as anyone, but they better come with stronger accountability for false press stories, so that we don't go back to a situation where papers can perform character assa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Something like that yes. I believe what you have to show is damage to reputation, which means you have to show that you had a reputation to damage, and that that reputation has been damaged (eg, if you have a reputation in one area, but the libelous words were spoken elsewhere to someone who'd never heard of you, that wouldn't count).
Whether your reputation was based on a lie or not, and the libelous words uttered were actually, you may be correct in that that is somewhat considered secondary ... the damage
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to be a bit of a spastic:
Whether your reputation was based on a lie or not, and the libelous words uttered were actually true, you may be correct...
and
that even if the court says you don't have to pay damages, you're still ruined
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, isn't that the whole point of law?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually if you type Tom Cruise into Google and see what suggestions come up (yes, that's a valid measurement of reputation!) you get things like 'films', 'movies', and 'height', so his overriding reputation seems to be "short actor".
More people in the world know that he's a short actor than know that he's a mental tax evading retard who won't come out of the closet, even though that does appear to be written all over his face.
Why care? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the UK is an important trading partner as well as military and diplomatic ally, it's my guess that the US has all kinds of agreements with them which generally allow civil cases to proceed across the Atlantic, and that types of cases which aren't reasonable under US law have to be specifically excluded from those agreements. This is just a guess; does anyone know for sure?
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, you'd be wrong.
Libel tourism has recently been explicitly eliminated, with UK being used as the poster child.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, while the U.S. has not ratified any international treaties requiring the recognition and enfocement of foreign judgments, U.S. courts are frequently willing to enforce foreign judgments. A good example of the legal reasoning that allows this to happen is summarized here [jonesday.com], although that case involved a U.S. judgment against a foreign national, rather than the reverse situation addressed by the SPEECH act.
The U.S. OSEC has posted a brief summary of the issue here [doc.gov].
Re:Why care? (Score:5, Informative)
The overwhelming majority of lawsuits never go to trial. But the cost of simply responding to a lawsuit can be staggering. Prior to the enactment of the SPEECH Act, the owners of TechDirt could ignore Jeffrey Morris and his U.K. attorney, and not respond to their lawsuit. However, were Morris to actually file suit in a U.K. court, and TechDirt did not respond, the court would more or less automatically find for the plaintiff by "default judgment."
You got that part--the question you're asking is, "so what?"
Read the letter from the lawyer at the TechDirt article: Addlestone (the lawyer) makes plain that he will litigate in the U.K., win a judgment--and then promises to pursue "relief" in the U.S. courts. That's the threat.
Once they win in the U.K., they can file suit in the U.S. to collect on a judgment issued by a court in the U.K. Before the SPEECH Act, a U.S. court would, at the least, hold a hearing to determine whether the suit has merit. That--by itself--would involve major legal fees. Large enough fees that TechDirt would probably be wiser to offer a settlement, paying Morris (and his attorney) cash to go away.
The SPEECH Act changes that: Morris and his attorney can go into court in the U.K., get a judgment, and bring their judgment to the U.S. Where a judge will simply throw them out of court--potentially awarding attorney's fees to TechDirt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2004? No statute of limitations in the UK? (Score:5, Funny)
I have to say, Jeffrey Morris is a twit, he got my dog pregnant, he pissed in my refrigerator, and I'm pretty sure I saw him talking to Osama Bin Laden and Mel Gibson. Jeffrey Morris smells funny, kind of like fermented horsepiss and turnips. Jeffrey Morris's girlfriend left him for quadriplegic asexual carnival freak.
Ha ha, my plan to shut down /. is practically complete!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cf McKinnon, the OFFENCE took place in UK!
Take that, 'merkins!
I suppose you also think that you should be subject to Iranian laws should someone in Iran get offended by something you say.