UK Bloggers Could Face Libel Fines Unless Registered As Press 394
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."
You get what you ask for (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You get what you ask for (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as they guarantee the right within reasonable boundaries, what's the problem with registering...?
The people in power today may guarantee the right within reasonable boundaries. The (different) people in power tomorrow might redefine the boundaries, or refuse to uphold the guarantee.
Re:You get what you ask for (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as they guarantee the right within reasonable boundaries, what's the problem with registering...?
So, you want to start a blog, you say? Great, go to city hall and pick up your permit. Ever try to get a building permit for something? Anything? You need to define "reasonable boundaries", first off. Then, you need to get low-level functionaries in every bureau to apply the regulations even-handedly. And when they don't, you spend days and $$'s on the appeal process.
You want to go through that for a blog?
As to whether or not the US government is correctly observing our civil liberties (1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments, in particular).... an analogy to frogs in pots comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that it's as unreasonable as asking people to register before getting the coffee in the morning.
In the USSR you had to register copier machines, right? That's unreasonable for a government of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a crazy person for conflating the right to bear arms (a uniquely American thing which the rest of the world sees with incomprehension and disgust) and the freedom of press which is enshrined in the international charter of Human rights (a fundamental right everyone thinks is really important unless they are Putin).
Also, I don't see how there is any value in allowing any organisation to pass things which are demonstrably lies as true news, nor how the "freedom of the press" somehow trumps the right t
Re:You get what you ask for (Score:5, Insightful)
I will go further. If you are a blogger, you are potentially a news organisation: you are publishing information for a very large public.
See, now that's how they want you to think about it. So now you can just keep going down that same path and everyone who uses Twitter is now a news organization (after all, some people have millions of followers, while many bloggers only have a few), and needs to "register with the government". Same with everyone who makes their Facebook account public (or, why even bother with that? If you have enough friends, what's the difference?) Hell, we are all posting our opinions on a blog here for everyone to read. Why shouldn't anyone who ever wants to post something on the Internet have to "register"? ACs should be illegal!
It's impossible to "register" with the government for a blog, Twitter account, or whatever and still *be* anonymous, so now there is no longer any ability to post anything contrary to the government without risking retribution.
Re: (Score:3)
- The UK finally gets around to fixing its slander/libel laws.
The UK only officially needs to care because there is a legal distinction between a common man and a member of the press. This need not exist. In which case, the UK's need to care ceases to exist as well.
And in any case, if you think the government doesn't know exactly who is the author of any blog with not-insignificant following, you are deluded.
Or correct. That is another option here. It can be too expensive to "know exactly" who the author is. Such is the case currently with the "Climategate" email/code leaks of the past few years.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK doesn't even allow you to fight to defend yourself. If someone breaks into your house in the UK,and you have a bat, knife or hunting rifle, and you use either of those to fight off or kill the intruder, you are probably looking at jail.
Not true. You can use "reasonable" force to defend yourself, up to and including lethal force. You will be arrested, but that's standard procedure for anyone who has killed another person whether murder or in self-defence. The definition of reasonable force is exactly that, what any reasonable person might think was reasonable at the time - including what in the cold light of day might be thought of as unreasonable, but in heat of moment, when in fear of the intruder, seemed appropriate.
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of lies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
USA: 4.8
UK: 1.2
Canada: 1.6
If the USA is so damn safe with so many guns tucked away for "self-defense", why is your murder rate per capita four times higher than the UK's?
You can dress it up in whatever flowery, biased, romanticised language you like, you can't hide the fact that Canada likes guns just as much as you do and have a far lower per capita murder rate at the same time. All your talk of freedom, tyranny, t
Re: (Score:2)
Before informing us with your trademark wisdom that rain arrives in droplets and not sheets, may I suggest you get yourself a username? If you're only AC because you're short on ideas, I doubt "putsch" is taken. The +1 funny mods will swell your karma, inch by inch, make no mistake.
Re:You get what you ask for (Score:4, Insightful)
If you pay attention, most of the people who were outspoken against press regulation were the big-money media companies. Funny that, isn't it, an industry that has proven to be out of control is against any regulation. So, let me ask you this, whose side are you on, that of Murdoch and the Fox Empire, or that of the general public who have been hacked, wire-tapped, lied to and abused by the press?
So, use the existing laws to punish the wrongdoers, which is what is happening regarding the phone 'hacking' that led to the Leveson enquiry which provided the recommendations that this law is based on. If the press, and by implication bloggers, are subject to government censorship there is no democracy.
Its no surprise that its the left of the political debate that is in favour of additional laws to control the press. Its alright though, they've got our best interests at heart. Just like when they wanted to introduce ID cards, and road pricing (vehicle tracking).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whose side are you on, people who only claim there's only two sides or everyone else?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On matters of censorship, there are only two sides. You're either for it or against it. The choice to act is what matters, not the motivation (rationalization)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not everything is so black and white as "for it or against it". You can be for it in some cases (IE: hate speech) and against it in others (IE: fact-based criticism). Or you can just not care either way, in which case you'd be neither for nor against.
Re:You get what you ask for (Score:4, Insightful)
"hate speech" is bullshit. Arrest the followers, the guy will the rope, or driving the pickup. A human can resist temptation.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't." - Robert Benchley
Re:You get what you ask for (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. A gun is not speech. It's even more elemental: self-defense, and the fundamental right to defend your own life.
Fail harder.
Re:You get what you ask for (Score:4, Insightful)
It really is that simple.
Re: (Score:3)
This is slashdot. They should at least have to pass the Voight-Kampff Test.
Libel Fines (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Libel Fines (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you have a democratically elected govt does not mean that their actions are in the spirit of or advance the cause of democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
I always use the "Beardo gets kicked in the nuts and everyone else gets $500" Act as an example.
Sure, it would pass but that doesn't make it legal / constitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's my $500?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that overly powerful media moguls pushing their political stance without regulation was less in the spirit of or advance the cause of democracy, wouldn'
Re:Libel Fines (Score:4, Insightful)
You misunderstand the notion of the rule of law and separation of powers. Even in Switzerland, a very direct democracy, the sovereign (aka the people) is still subject to the constitution, itself subordinated to international agreements and obligations, has no executive power and the interpretation of the laws is the job of professional judges.
This is how you get democracy without a dictatorship of the majority. Interestingly, this process is most easily perverted when the media is owned by a restricted clique (I am not thinking about any Australian billionaire, here), thus the need for regulation.
Checks and balances FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think it is a great day for democracy. The people wanted this.
If the people wanted this then why did the government have to vote on this at 10:30 at night?
Re: (Score:2)
If the people wanted this then why did the government have to vote on this at 10:30 at night?
Dancing with Stars was over?
Re: (Score:3)
If the people wanted this then why did the government have to vote on this at 10:30 at night?
Dancing with Czars was over?
Because that is when the people wanted it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the debate was long and vigorous? What is it, the government must shut down when you go to sleep?
Re: (Score:2)
The people wanted this. They voted in a Government that did an independent enquiry and then actioned those recommendations.
Uh, what?
"The people" voted 'none of the above' in the last British election, but they got a government anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
How so? you mean the MPs in Westminster had no one voting for them? Or that government should only be allowed to form if magically everyone (including crazy Dan down the street) agrees on a unique perfect solution?
The bunch of upper-class twits in power were elected by the people, largely I suspect because it had been too long and people had forgotten why you should not vote for the nasty party. But elected they were. And when asked whether the FPTP system ought to be amended (and it really, really should)
Re:Libel Fines (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You confuse democracy and civil rights; a common mistake. Asserting, however, that "the people wanted this" is patently absurd. Even setting aside the esoteric (for some) notion that civil rights can and should trump majority rule, I seriously doubt that most voters would have, if asked, been in favor of this monstrous affront to the freedom of expression.
Re: (Score:3)
Q. Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be regulated?
And 79% said that they would like "an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct" (ie what we've got).
Albeit this is a poll and not a democratic process, but the democratic process is there (people vote for a Government, the Government enacts runs independent reviews, the recommendations are enacted upon). The only way this process could have been
Re: (Score:2)
A YouGov poll from the end of last year [yougov.co.uk] asked:
Q. Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be regulated?
And 79% said that they would like "an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct" (ie what we've got).
Is it "what we've got?" I think this legislation will do almost all of the above. It's the "independent" part that is an open question.
Re: (Score:2)
Democratic does not necessary equal right, or just, or fair.
'When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world â" "No, you move."'
Press publishes a misleading headline... Shocker! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a great day for democracy, but not liberal democracy.
(USAians may need to look up the definition of that.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Sure you can.
Get rid of those pesky representatives. Have people vote directly on issues. It's rather harder to bribe 50 million people than 500. And we have this technology called "The Internet" - perhaps you've heard of it? - which could make such voting possible.
Sure, we've seen what happens with mob rule and demagoguery (shall I preemptively Godwin my own debate?), but honestly, I'd rather a government take pages from Mad Max and Idiocracy than 1984 and Atlas Shrugged.
Re: (Score:2)
It is surprisingly easy to bribe 50 million people. It's called advertising. Also the British press is largely dominated by News Corps, which means that direct democracy would quickly to either people learning very fast to think about their decisions, or to some fascist state.
Direct democracy can work, but it depends on the political culture. And the political culture is largely the result of the way news are written. If outrageous claims and posturing works, you get that :(
Re: (Score:2)
It's rather harder to bribe 50 million people than 500. One word. Welfare. That said, I *do* get your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Libel is more complicated in the UK (Score:2)
If you stick to reporting the truth you'll be fine.
I'm not a UK citizen, much less a lawyer, but I remember from some news articles about lawsuits that a critical legal difference between the UK and USA is that unlike the USA, "the truth" is NOT an absolute defense against libel charges.
Though a quick googling shows that some changes were made in 2011, but I'm seeing stuff saying that you still have to be able to PROVE it's true in court in order for it to be a defense, and that the level of proof required can be difficult to meet.
Re:Libel is more complicated in the UK (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
Therefore, making any critical blogger subject to extortion on a grand scale, whether they actually did anything wrong or not. Gee, how could that possibly have a chilling effect on freedom of speech? Just like any other "crime/punishment model?" A healthy democracy requires the ability to speak freely. That's why free speech was enshrined as a right in what most consider to be the free world.
I was born in a communist country. My family took *dire* risks to move to western society. I hear that Iran a
Re:Libel Fines (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm, no, you've got that backwards. In the UK, the truth is *always* a valid defence. If you were telling the truth, you will always win a libel suit - there is no way for you to lose.
The reason the UK has a "bad reputation when it comes to libel laws" is because lawyers think it should be like the American system, where it doesn't matter what the truth is as long as you can pay more money than the other guy.
Re:Libel Fines (Score:4, Informative)
Uhm, no, you've got that backwards. In the UK, the truth is *always* a valid defence. If you were telling the truth, you will always win a libel suit - there is no way for you to lose.
The difference between UK and the civilized world is that in UK, defendant is the one who has to prove the truth of his claims. In civilized countries, as with any other crime, the party charged with libel is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and it's up to the prosecution to prove the falsity of any statements that are claimed to be libelous. It's quite obvious that UK laws do not favor the guy with less money - good luck proving the truth of your statement against a well-determined team of highly paid attorneys picking holes in any arguments you make.
Democracy will be imposed! (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a victory for Democracy unless you have the actual citizens voting.
Bought and paid for representatives aren't a measure of true democracy...
Re: (Score:3)
But democracy has finished - as you note yourself, the Lords are unelected, so their decision - regardless of which way it would go - would not be democratic. If they actually happen to turn this down, or at least defang it, it would only go further to show the failure of democracy in this case.
Well, no, not really. They basically act as a brake. If the commons really want to push it through, they can go all parliament act on it. What the lords do is bash it back to the commons repeatedly. This takes a long
Libel... (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand the issue... If you are convicted of libel you have to pay fines, etc. Just make sure that what you write in public is the truth and is backed up by facts. What is so hard about that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You might write some true facts that someone else does not like -- eg you expose them (or cast doubt) as selling goods/services that do not do what they claim [[think chiropedist]]. They then sue you, under the current libel laws you have to prove (a very high standard) that you are correct. This sort of tactic has been used to stop legitimate comments.
I heard a discussion on the radio where it was said that the publisher had to bear the complainant's legal costs. This is OK if an individual is complaining
Bloggers won't be included in this (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
And you believe them?
Besides, once this law is entrenched, removing any such limitations will be trivial.
Oh dear, I made a 'slippery slope' argument and that's apparently a logical fallacy so it could never, ever happen. How silly I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, once this law is entrenched, removing any such limitations will be trivial.
Except if you read the legislation it will take a 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament to change the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Except if you read the legislation it will take a 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament to change the law.
Yeah, that'll work.
If the government could restrict future changes to laws, it would add 'this law can never be changed' to the end of every law it passed.
Re: (Score:2)
So they add a clause changing the law into some "fluff" bill that is guaranteed to pass without fanfare, like a "Flags and Puppies For War Orphans" bill or a "Congratulations to the X School Football Team for its Victory over Y School in Such-and-such Tournament" bill. The fluff bill gets approved unanimously, and the tacked on piece makes anyone who writes more than ten words on a subject into a member of the "press" and subject to this law.
Sounds like... (Score:2)
they need another Revolution, this time on home turf...
The problem is not with the blogs (Score:3)
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.
Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Even if this fixes every issue you mentioned it is not worth giving up your freedom of speech for.
it's almost as if... (Score:2)
Looking for my tinfoil hat... not in that drawer... not in the bookcase... THERE it is behind the monitor. A little wrinkled, one moment. (rustle) There.
Wow, it's as if, had the recent media scandals not existed, it would have been necessary to invent them.
So that is it? (Score:2)
We are not even pretending to be a free, open, and democratic society anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't back in 1776 or so, either. But at least Britain does not pretend to be free and open.
Bad Title Bad Summary (Score:5, Informative)
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 [theyworkforyou.com];
(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 [theyworkforyou.com] 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 [theyworkforyou.com].
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.
Before you jump to defend freedom... (Score:2)
"The Press" in the UK has systematically abused it's position. It has acted as if it were beyond the law and society as a whole. Having been skating on thin ice for more than a decade, hacking of phones of both the weak and the powerful was the final straw.
Alas, this law is the unfortunate consequence of their own actions. I would gladly solicit better suggestions to tackle this issue. How do you reign in a press drunk with power
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"The Press" in the UK has systematically abused it's position.
We're not talking about the press. We're talking about individuals like you and me expressing our opinions online, and getting hit with libel charges.
Having been skating on thin ice for more than a decade, hacking of phones of both the weak and the powerful was the final straw.
Phone hacking was already illegal. There's no need for a new law.
This kind of solution will backfire (Score:3)
Just FUD form Murdoc and co (Score:4, Insightful)
Guido is a stalking horse for Rupert Murdoch
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least on matters of freedom of the press, I agree with you.
Hey Limeys, what do you think of our First Amendment now?
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey Limeys, what do you think of our First Amendment now?
I'll let you know when Congress actually starts respecting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:4, Informative)
I *can* say Scientology has the behaviour of a cult in UK because that is directly quoting a High Court judge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what that 'small rally' was about, but this has the neo-nazi smell all over it.
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:4, Informative)
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/ [pi-news.org]
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 [jihadwatch.org]
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.
The US isn't as clear on this as you think (Score:3)
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 [nytimes.com]. And that was not the first attempt to get such a measure through, and it was within the last decade.
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He couldn't have really been one of our presidents. Nobody seems to have voted for him.
Just another Zombie invasion. We're getting a bit used to them.
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:OUTRAGE! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if that counts as the activity of ordinary people. It's not as if she wrote a blog, or a newspaper column, or even protested without causing disruption.
It's like claiming that a law against bank robbery can be "enforced against ordinary people" because an ordinary person can rob a bank. Yeah, they can, but robbing a bank isn't really the activity of an ordinary person in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)