![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
paulevansIs Labour about to clamp-down on the blogsphere?about possible reforms to the UK defamation and libel laws. I have no idea what Mike's source is, but mine is open and to the point. Padraig from Index on Censorship attended a Westminster Hall debate this week and wrote it up for Liberal Conspiracy.
( Summary of why Mike Smithson has got the wrong end of the stick )I added a link to the Eady case as it's important, other useful links are:
A Hungarian porn producer has filed his tax forms, and claimed scene dressing props as legitimate business expenses. So the tax inspectors have to watch his films to confirm they're used. Apparently 'It's a hard job'
I'm not enough of a scientist to know if this holds water at all, written from a sceptic perspective I think, but I don't discount the anti-climate change position completely, doubt is good. Anyone able to expand, confirm or debunk?
I've read many of these quotes before, but it is a fairly good collection about how anti-abortion campaigners react if it's them that needs to make the choice.
Mostly for my reference as I've got some stuff I want to back up from my old PC and have never done it. Anyone got experience of using this or other software to burn AVIs and similar onto DVD?
Another guide to online libel, this time from Urban 75. Seems accurate, although I'm really not sure about the linking could be defamation thing. Mentions the Staggers/Scallywag case directly though.
Not a bad general guide about what is and isn't acceptable on someone else's blog, and most of it applies to me as well (although the bits about huge readership numbers and similar aren't, natch). Freedom of speech doesn't apply.
It doesn't actually change shape, but it's got a selection opf different weapon fits, and dude, it's a robot. Um, not 100% sure I approve, but still, it's cool
These are cool, a set of failed 'name' websites and why they failed. Some of the could work well now, others are just bad examples of stupid business plans.
Andrew's redone some of the code for the cross poster I'm using, much better, solves the timestamp problem and a few other things. I really need to reinstall an FTP client and fix mine.
I haven't done anything wrong(ETA: since I wrote this, the Press Gazette has covered the story and has comments from Vegas[3]). Given the nature of the UK libel laws this makes sense—his lawyers will've told him to stay quiet and not mention specifics, and they'll likely push for an out of court settlement. If it does go to court, unfortunately, the odds are in his favour to win the case. English libel law notoriously favours the plaintiff and all he he needs to demonstrate is that his reputation was hurt (uncontestable); the Guardian'll need to, they need to demonstrate that their version of events is a reasonable interpretation (and he'll only need a few audience witnesses to say otherwise unfortunately). Teh Graun pretty much needs the girl herself to come forward else they've lost. Have I mentioned English libel law is an arse? I think I might've.
I too was at the show on Friday and from my vantage point in the second row, I can honestly say that the female audience member in question appeared to thoroughly enjoy the experience. Coming off stage she looked as if she had just won the lottery.and as Chortle observes:
Did his ‘victim’ feel uncomfortable, too? Undoubtedly. I certainly did. Did she feel abused? Only she can tell. It’s the million dollar question that Vegas’s reputation rests upon. Or maybe the damage has already been done.We'll be watching this one closely I suspect. Tim? I'll be in touch mate.
Using the law to protect reputations is our specialism.Hmm. ( Some hyperbolic musings on my part )
liadnan in the comments here makes a very good, and informed point, from the perspective of a practicing barrister: By and large the lawyer's (or at least the solicitor's -professional obligations are slightly different at the bar-) job is to advise -within the law- on possible courses of action which may achieve the client's wishes, and then, once the client has decided, carry out the chosen course, not to make decisions for their client based on their own political, social, or moral beliefs about what the law should be.He's right, of course, the law firm itself can't be blamed specifically for acting on behalf of their client, but then, I've always known I'd make a terrible lawyer...
To ensure we broadcast as clear a picture as possible, Clive and I need to deal with this matter by addressing the parties/issues involved in the following order:The Fasthosts issue is a contractual/specific libel case one, that I'm not involved in, I have however removed them from my potential list of companies to rent a server from (I am looking) in the meantime, pending their response. The libel law is where my obvious interest lies, the law can, and should be, reformed, and this may be the cause celebre to get it done, we shall see. in the meantime, Chris Applegate asks:
- Fasthosts
- Schillings
- Alisher Usmanov
- UK libel law
Today, we begin with Fasthosts.
I figured an article that doesn’t mention the allegations specifically but still discusses them is better than no article at all. But in the light of reading all the blog coverage of this now, I have my doubts: Am I right, or have I cowardly compromised? Your thoughts are welcome.Personally, I think he was correct to be cautious. Craig Murray, by all accounts, thinks he has a solid case and welcomes the opportunity to test it in court, Schillings/Usmanov seem to want to quash the story but not actually sue (that's my big issue with the law as is, money can suppress a story by threat of legal action). But those not party to the evidence itself need to be circumspect--I have reason to believe Craig may be correct, but I have no plans on going to court over his story. Giving coverage to the action, but not the details of the story itself, seems to me to be a valid compromise.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif){kind=small}
tsitsoss_rss, one of the first 'blog' feeds I subscribed to after setting up LJ, think I found it clicking links from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif){kind=small}
ukpolitics, and definitely an influence on my decision to try and 'blog' on stuff I know about &c. Strange how we can all end up going full circle. Of course the author was daweaver of this parish, before he left, many of his concerns about LJ have since been proven completely right, naturally.calapine, with a background by anabel_icons—I liked this when I first saw it, but she'd messed up the spelling, I animated it but messed up. I was said by Hartnell in The Daleks' Master Plan (reviewed here by nhw, a fairly high google result for the phrase), and is thus cool.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamorizaluzianskya