Comments on: Update

By: The errant moons of Neptune circumambulating the Gates of Janus

The errant moons of Neptune circumambulating the Gates of Janus — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:41:00 +0000

To clarify the situation, Harold was on another site discussing very serious local political issues ( no swearing) and the thread was locked.He protested at this, questioning why and he was then deleted.The site owner came on here after he criticised the site and gave him grief, he retaliated with abuse.All of this was provoked.He guessed the street of the site owner since the person in question mentioned that they lived in a certain area of Thornton, which predominantly has 4 streets; it was a 25% chance.The area in question is home to druggies and other low lifes etc, and he used this as a form of abuse.He does not know nor did he publish the address of the site owner.

He has apologised to Phil and assured him he will no longer swear ever again on this site.He will in due course set up his own site where abuse will be in hyper-abundant amounts given his intense antipathy towards MPS, celebs etc.

The question remains, which is morally worse, someone who neglects their public duty after being elected as such;making decisions out of self/party interest that impact peoples lives in an adverse way, thus ignorimng their constituents concerns etc

or simply writing obscene abuse about that person?

I know the answer to that question.

By: Boney

Boney — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:39:30 +0000

yeah i had to wonder at why repeat what i had said already but n/m

By: TrooBloo

TrooBloo — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:20:50 +0000

I think they mean you can sue someone in the UK under UK law, not iceland or wherever.

By: Bruiser

Bruiser — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:22:28 +0000

I Say shame on all those who are abusing Phils kind hospitality by hosting this great blog.

There is no need for bad language or offensive comments, if you truly believe something to be true, and say, you believe it to be so, it is not liable/slander. Just a statement of your personal belief.

By: Boney

Boney — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:49:33 +0000

Aye like i said, it’s a fail. Even if u sued someone from the UK in Iceland they can simply ignore it. That “inhouselawyer.co.uk” stuff is a bit mad as the UK can’t compel any ISP in another country unless using channels of the back of international treaties in relation to serious crime. Defamation of character is a civil lawsuit so basically coppers don’t give a fook.

By: John Bickerstaffe

John Bickerstaffe — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:06:07 +0000

Hence ‘libel tourism’, due to the favourable nature of our legal system for those keen on stifling freedom of opinion and information.

Even without foreigners exploiting our legal system, we have enough people willing to use it to their own ends – look up Simon Singh and have a look at the sort of batshittery he’s up against in the courts.

TPB was targeted on many, many occasions with DMCA take-down notices – all of which were ignored, rightly, because US jurisdiction stops at its own borders, regardless of what its court officers believe otherwise.

By: Philtheone

Philtheone — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:10:57 +0000

That can’t be right, because if it was, The Pirate Bay would have been closed down years ago with court action in the USA.

Instead they were defiant in the face of legal threats from just about every major software and media house you can think of because they were protected by Swedish law.

You’re basically saying that you could pick and choose a country with the most favourable laws in which to go and view a web site so you could exploit the law there.

So if libel brought the death penalty in Outer Mongolia, you could go there, view the site with libellous content, press charges and then have the author executed even if you were both English, the site was hosted in England and the article written and published from an English ISP.

In the case of the comments on here, Harold didn’t say anything as fact that wasn’t true, and therefore I don’t think he can be held accountable for anything. You are allowed to have opinions.

By: TrooBloo

TrooBloo — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:00:39 +0000

Of no less importance in the digital age is an understanding of the ways in which existing laws are applied to current modes of communication in different jurisdictions. Under English law, information published on the internet is deemed to be published in England (and so subject to English law) if an internet user accesses it from this country, even if the publisher and servers are located overseas. Under English law each communication of a libel is a separate publication in respect of which an action may be brought. Therefore the English law does allow complaints over internet articles and blogs read in England or foreign newspapers sold here that have resulted in damage to a reputation. By contrast, in the US there is no comparable rule of ‘primary publication’. Instead, the law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

While internet publication (particularly on blogs) can present challenges to bringing a libel claim, the English law has adapted to meet these challenges. For example, an internet service provider may be compelled to disclose the identity of a person at a specified internet protocol (IP) address, thereby unmasking an anonymous blogger against whom action can be taken (as in The Author of A Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009]). HatTip inhouselawyer.co.uk

By: Boney

Boney — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:36:58 +0000

well ya could try but would fail.

By: Boney

Boney — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:07:54 +0000

Boom john!