1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Important: a note about the 'nonce' threads and naming living individuals

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by editor, Oct 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Meltingpot

    Meltingpot On hiatus


    That could be done as well, particularly if there's a strong public interest defence, e.g. the journalist was exposing corruption or covering up of pollution for example.

    That's a fair point. I was assuming the subsequent case would succeed (I wasn't really thinking about it at all tbh).
     
  2. Waiheke.Island

    Waiheke.Island Kiwi through and through. NZ rocks.

    Interesting query I guess you could call it. If someone like myself posting from another country throw shit and name call, will they still hold your site accountable ?
    Not that I intend to do it, just interested.
     
  3. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    If the site doesn't make reasonable attempts to identify and remove such material as soon as is reasonably practicable then a case can be made against them in a UK court no matter the origin / location of the poster.

    ...Is the impression i get from the original post.
     
  4. gosub

    gosub ~#

    because all documentation for hosting and everything is UK based. Editor is effectively a UK publisher of our words
     
  5. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    We're still technically accountable, wherever the geographical source of the libel.
     
  6. Waiheke.Island

    Waiheke.Island Kiwi through and through. NZ rocks.

    Thats a bit rough. In a New Zealand website message board you can tell someone or call someone whatever you like. And they do.
    Its a shame they have gone OTT over there. It must spoil it for you guys.
     
    tommers likes this.
  7. gabi

    gabi Banned Banned

    That's completely and utterly untrue. Our libel laws are based on the UK's.
     
    peterkro and cesare like this.
  8. Waiheke.Island

    Waiheke.Island Kiwi through and through. NZ rocks.

    You would be laughed out of court here for some of the rubbish the Poms are getting to court. Are you a Kiwi living here ?
    NZ I mean.
     
  9. gabi

    gabi Banned Banned

    No, I'm a kiwi living in the UK.

    Like most of our laws, the libel laws are rooted in british legislation.
     
  10. Waiheke.Island

    Waiheke.Island Kiwi through and through. NZ rocks.

    How long since you lived in New Zealand ?
     
  11. gabi

    gabi Banned Banned

    I don't know what about the first sentence is confusing :confused:
     
  12. Waiheke.Island

    Waiheke.Island Kiwi through and through. NZ rocks.

    When was the last time you were here ?
     
  13. gabi

    gabi Banned Banned

    You edited your post I see.

    14 years anyway, in answer to your amended question.
     
  14. gabi

    gabi Banned Banned

    And you've edited it again. Nuts.

    4 months in answer to your re-edited post.
     
  15. Waiheke.Island

    Waiheke.Island Kiwi through and through. NZ rocks.

    Honestly Gabi i think you might be out of touch. Check the last time people were convicted here on such charges.
     
  16. Waiheke.Island

    Waiheke.Island Kiwi through and through. NZ rocks.

    Realistic charges.
     
  17. gabi

    gabi Banned Banned

    Quoting you this time as you seem to have a habit of editing.

    Not many libel cases make it to court in the UK either. Usually a threatening letter sorts out the problem. Just like in NZ. Most people can't be arsed/can't afford to go to court.

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=433
     
  18. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    *Thread moved to UK politics forum. Poster who choose to ignore this will be banned.
     
  19. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Please note:
    Legal position:
     
  20. taffboy gwyrdd

    taffboy gwyrdd Embrace the confusion!

    Worth underlining that from the POV of protecting the site to the max it is unwise to even allude too much to specific..."a former tory leader" for example (NOT someone I have in mind as an alledged abuser), when alluding to something in the last 20 years can only mean a few people.

    Also, 3rd party stuff "X said Y did Z" is a no-no.

    I've done both of these with fairly good intent elsewhere online and retracted or been deleted.

    It's not as if we KNOW these people anyway, it's all a blur really and for the police to sort out if they're not inept or obstructed for some reason.

    The important things, as I keep saying, are often far more in the themes and patterns.
     
    equationgirl likes this.
  21. Orang Utan

    Orang Utan Sub-Sub-Librarian

  22. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    This is worth reading just in case anyone thinks it's OK to repeat something 'because it's all over Twitter."

     
  23. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Just to remind people: frivolous off-topic posts will be removed from this thread.
     
  24. Quartz

    Quartz Eclectic contrarian plebeian

    You might want to sticky this for a little while.
     
  25. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    It's been stickied for some time. Our policy about posting up names here remains the same: we first remove and warn and then we remove and ban.
     
  26. Corax

    Corax Luke 5:16. Acts 4:35.

    I don't really understand why anyone can genuinely fail to understand this, or have any problem with it. It doesn't restrict 'free speech' or 'outing' people in the slightest.

    If you have information that someone's a nonce, you can very easily start a free blog with that info on it. You can even let people on here know you've started a blog on the subject, and are looking for comments. Free speech prevails, but you're taking the risk personally rather than dumping it on editor. Where's the problem?
     
  27. Mrs Magpie

    Mrs Magpie On a bit of break...

    Or better still, take that information to the Police
     
    DJ Squelch, Lock&Light and Quartz like this.
  28. Corax

    Corax Luke 5:16. Acts 4:35.

    Well yes. But that doesn't always result in the response that you or I may expect...
     
    muscovyduck likes this.
  29. Dr_Herbz

    Dr_Herbz Devil's Advocate Banned

    Sorry guys... you're talking with your collective dicks hanging out!

    I've faced similar shit on my boards and the only thing you can be 'forced' to do, is take down the 'offending' post, and unless you refuse to take it down when asked to do so, you can't be held responsible for the 'offending' post, and implying that you can be is simply scaremongering!

    That's all...
     
  30. DexterTCN

    DexterTCN Well-Known Member

    Jesus Christ. :eek:

    Well...harsh but fair.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page