Anarchism, legality, religion and stoopid USians
2008-May-29, Thursday 05:35-
Washington DC: Built by morons... (but then, London's not that much better)
-
This is rather good (if a bit weighty), legal responsibity of online content, who's gets sued for libel, etc and what your web host should be aware of. Seems to back up my view that screening comments can cause issues
-
Kathleen on how many Christian campaigners are distinctly unChristian and her own particular brand of liberal theology
-
If anyone has any examples of how an anarchic society might work, then I'd be interested in reading them. But for now, count me out.
no subject
Date: 2008-May-29, Thursday 14:46 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-May-29, Thursday 15:07 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-May-29, Thursday 23:07 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-May-29, Thursday 23:39 (UTC)If everything is published and you delete on complaint then you have a defense that's held up, but even then it can cause problems: Essentially, IANAL, but I have friends who are (and my fiancée sat next to me has a postgrad law degree) and no one fully knows. We need some case law or an Act to get started. As it happens, there's an interesting possibility brewing, a member of the BNP has started a blog on the free platform of the Telegraph website, with potentially legally interesting remarks being made.
As things stand, I advise any politician that asks to either moderate post publication or not have comments, and ensure everyone has some sort of account for traceability. Pre screening is possibly the worst option.
But I'm not sure, and its UK law, I know AUS is different in some respects but I've not looked at any details at all.
no subject
Date: 2008-May-29, Thursday 23:58 (UTC)Damn good point. Damn.
I screen comments to prevent Spam and Extreme Trolls (I get a lot of both, on occasion). But mostly I unscreen people's comments otherwise, and I don't necessarily agree with the comments I unscreen.
Maybe I should put a disclaimer on my blog...