[lostalex]

Disgusting affront to the the freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Europe has very disturbing ideas about the freedom of speech.


This is just as disgusting as the super injunctions.

If you put yourself online then you open yourself up to criticism. If you can't handle it then don't go online. You don't have the RIGHT to not be offended. Freedom of speech means the right to offend. No one is forcing you to go online and read peoples comments.

Very disturbing.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Disgusting affront to the the freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Europe has very disturbing ideas about the freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means the right to offend.

Very disturbing.

This side of the water, we tend to have a more civilised view.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, will make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

In English Law :

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

A person who harms another's reputation may be referred to as a "famacide", "defamer", or "slanderer". The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing.

So the addition to the Defamation Bill merely adds elements of the internet to the list of "outlets" which can be prosecuted by the individual to protect their rights

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Omah

Very disturbing.

This side of the water, we tend to have a more civilised view.

censorship is civilized? really? Well i guess if you think fascism is civilized...

There is nothing civilized about restricting speech.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

censorship is civilized? really? Well i guess if you think fascism is civilized...

There is nothing civilized about restricting speech.

Yeah, as I understand it, the Southern States of the USA are the most democratic and tolerant regimes in the world - no repession, free expression, black or white, you're in the right .....

[Black Dagger]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Disgusting affront to the the freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Europe has very disturbing ideas about the freedom of speech.

This is just as disgusting as the super injunctions.

If you put yourself online then you open yourself up to criticism. If you can't handle it then don't go online. You don't have the RIGHT to not be offended. Freedom of speech means the right to offend. No one is forcing you to go online and read peoples comments.

Very disturbing.

There is a massive difference between freedom of speech and let's say somebody trolling an R.I.P page for example.

What's next? Thought crimes?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

What's next? Thought crimes?

No

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Disgusting affront to the the freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Europe has very disturbing ideas about the freedom of speech.


This is just as disgusting as the super injunctions.

If you put yourself online then you open yourself up to criticism. If you can't handle it then don't go online. You don't have the RIGHT to not be offended. Freedom of speech means the right to offend. No one is forcing you to go online and read peoples comments.

Very disturbing.

I think in some cases, like the one in the article, then naming and prosecuting these people is warranted, there is a big difference between free speech and spreading revolting lies about a person and defaming their character.

Putting yourself up for criticism is one thing but being labelled a paedophile for someone elses entertainment is quite another.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think in some cases, like the one in the article, then naming and prosecuting these people is warranted, there is a big difference between free speech and spreading revolting lies about a person and defaming their character.

Putting yourself up for criticism is one thing but being labelled a paedophile for someone elses entertainment is quite another.

being called names is not a good reason to criminalize speech.

Should i be able to have every one arrested who ever says something homophobic? why is it only celebrities and people in the public eye who seem to get this special treatment? this isn't just about freedom of speech it's also about elitism. Just like the super injunctions.

We live in a SOCIETY. you don't have a right to privacy if you put yourself in the public eye. No one is forced to be in the public eye, no one is forced to have a facebook account or a twitter account. When you put yourself out into society you also put yourself open to criticism and ridicule.

this is just as much about the class system in europe as it is about the freedom of speech.

When's the last time a court defended some working class person who was called an ASBO or a chav online?? WHy is it only the RIch people who seem to be getting this kind of defense from the government??

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

being called names is not a good reason to criminalize speech.

Should i be able to have every one arrested who ever says something homophobic? why is it only celebrities and people in the public eye who seem to get this special treatment? this isn't just about freedom of speech it's also about elitism. Just like the super injunctions.

We live in a SOCIETY. you don't have a right to privacy if you put yourself in the public eye. No one is forced to be in the public eye, no one is forced to have a facebook account or a twitter account. When you put yourself out into society you also put yourself open to criticism and ridicule.

this is just as much about the class system in europe as it is about the freedom of speech.

When's the last time a court defended some working class person who was called an ASBO or a chav online?? WHy is it only the RIch people who seem to be getting this kind of defense from the government??

Well, say what you want, but I don't class harassment of people for no apparent reason other than the fact that these people get some sort of kicks from it, as free speech, in fact it's a mockery of free speech. People should be able to have Facebook accounts without the threat of some bored stranger deciding to harass them for no reason.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, say what you want, but I don't class harassment of people for no apparent reason other than the fact that these people get some sort of kicks from it, as free speech, in fact it's a mockery of free speech. People should be able to have Facebook accounts without the threat of some bored stranger deciding to harass them for no reason.

i'm sure they would disagree that they said it for no reason. And even if they did say it for no reason, even if they did say it just for the Lulz, then that makes this whole thing even more ridiculous.
Yur banning free speech cause someone said something ridiculous? toughen the eff up.

If someone reports her to the cops calling her a pedophile that is already illegal, making a false report is already illegal. The laws don't need any changing.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

i'm sure they would disagree that they said it for no reason. And even if they did say it for no reason, even if they did say it just for the Lulz, then that makes this whole thing even more ridiculous.
Yur banning free speech cause someone said something ridiculous? toughen the eff up.

If someone reports her to the cops calling her a pedophile that is already illegal, making a false report is already illegal. The laws don't need any changing.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe everyone should be allowed to use the internet, it shouldn't be only there for Trolls and people with tough skins, you wouldn't be allowed harass someone like that in r/l and you shouldn't be allowed harass someone on the net either. I do believe in free speech but I believe there is a difference between free speech and harassment

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe everyone should be allowed to use the internet, it shouldn't be only there for Trolls and people with tough skins, you wouldn't be allowed harass someone like that in r/l and you shouldn't be allowed harass someone on the net either. I do believe in free speech but I believe there is a difference between free speech and harassment

actually yur wrong, if i was at a bar and got into an argument with someone and just flippantly said "you are an ugly, fagggot pedophile!" do you honestly think i'd be arrested? no of course not. getting into a verbal spar with someone in a pub doesn't get you arrested. You might get kicked out of the pub and told to go home but yu certainly wouldn't get arrested.

So if it's okay to say in real life in a pub, why isn't it okay online? iF everyone was arrested for calling eachother names we should ALL be in jail.