Comments for skepticlawyer

Comment on Offence, the Net and the Law by Adrien

Adrien — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:07:13 +0000

I looked up Encyclopedia Dramatica and it’s obviously satirical. Yes it’s in that mode of satire, distasteful to about 99% of the human race, that attempts to offend approx 100% of the human race. But any litigation launched at in some attempt to stop hate speech is a waste of money.

I think Skeptic has a point about Free Speech envelope pushers endangering the right but the trouble with politically correct codes of speech is twofold. #1 You actually create an audience for people who enjoy this stuff precisely because it’s risque. #2 You force actual haters, for example Storm Front, to use reasonable language so that their views are obscured and modified and seem actually moderate.

Comment on You gotta laugh at yourself, sometimes by skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:01:13 +0000

My father was a meanie with doorknockers. He told the Mormons we were Jehovah’s Witnesses and told the Jehovah’s Witnesses we were Mormons. It worked a treat, it was like our house had been marked with the religious equivalent of a white cross in plague time.

Comment on Offence, the Net and the Law by armagny

armagny — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:23:05 +0000

It’s when the ignorant bigot says

“Welcome to the one world government, folks. Is this what you wanted?”

that I feel the most sympathy towards the action. Although I’m feeling some (unusual) common ground with Iain Hall’s comments too.

One World govvie is when ignorant Americans conflate their own bizarrely interpreted Consitutional provisions with the laws and interests of every nation in the world, not when a country seeking to protect its citizens takes action in respect of something that directly affects those citizens.

That being said, it isn’t they that cause the material to be published in Australia and to Australians…

Comment on You gotta laugh at yourself, sometimes by TimT

TimT — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:27:22 +0000

I’m reminded again of this clever Dave Walker cartoon. Check out the cranky atheists in comments!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/cartoon/2010/feb/01/religion-atheism

Also be sure to check Dave’s site, he’s got one of the nicest blogs out there I reckon:

http://www.cartoonchurch.com/blog/

Comment on You gotta laugh at yourself, sometimes by Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:20:53 +0000

I always liked the John Safran skit where he went to Salt Lake City and tried to convert the Mormons to science. They were not very happy. I do hope that they put themselves in my shoes and thought about how I feel when I have Mormons knocking on my door.

Comment on Offence, the Net and the Law by skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:41:21 +0000

There’s a fine but distinct line between defamation, invasion of privacy and online harassment, but finding it can be a real challenge. There is a danger that by dragging everything under the ‘free speech’ umbrella we may actually imperil free speech.

It’s only a matter of time before some US serviceman ‘goes postal’ on Phelps (or someone like Phelps) because the legal instrument has been too blunt to bring out the differences between expressing an opinion and what would probably be harassment (in person, obviously).

There’s a similar analogy to be had when it comes to privacy issues; the British tabloids really overdid it with Max Mosley, and now their ability to blow the lid off any actual scandals (as opposed to confected ones) has been seriously limited — in large part because they conflated privacy with free speech.

As to representation issues, well, I’m a huge fan of contingency fees. They give the little guy a chance. One of the things that’s helped pull the press into line over here has been ‘no win, no fee’ in defamation cases. Often it’s been poor people on council estates who’ve been able to get at the Red Tops who’ve made their lives so miserable.

Comment on Offence, the Net and the Law by Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:07:35 +0000

The trouble is that there is no affordable way to redress issues of defamation on such sites unless you have the wherewithal to take legal action. Frankly I don’t have the spare cash to do anything through the courts and the authors of that hate page know this as well as they know that the jurisdictional issues and their anonymity makes it hard for me or anyone else to seek redress.

Anyway I look forward to your piece on Net Bullying. If you need any examples let me know I have a whole website where I have catalogued the attempts to bully me. (It’s private but you can access it if I allow it).

Comment on Offence, the Net and the Law by Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:19:25 +0000

Iain, yes, my first reaction when I looked at this site was “Well, if there was ever a site which is ripe for net censorship, this is it.”

I’m in the process of writing a post on legal options for people who are bullied via the internet. It is a real problem, because none of the existing legal options really quite cover the situation.

Nonetheless, if people have written things about you which are defamatory on this site – they’re simply not allowed to do that, free speech or no. And the Gutnick case would be right on point.

Comment on Offence, the Net and the Law by Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:57:49 +0000

As someone who has been demonised on a a page of the ED site I am rather less than impressed by the arguments about free speech on the net when it comes to this net entity. Because when it boils down to it if the right to free speech is not balanced by an obligation that what is published can be challenged on its veracity and its authors and publishers held responsible for its content then it is by no means a virtue and any exemplar of the free speech idea.

Oh and don’t let the visual similarity to Wiki fool you; this site is set up so that the original author of a page has continuing control of its content and they can not only remove any corrections that may be made to the page but they can also exclude the person who made them from making any future edits.

Frankly it is sites like this that make me think that Senator Conroy’s net filter may not be such a bad idea.

Comment on Offence, the Net and the Law by skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:46:15 +0000

That’s a good point, Nick — I think the AHRC may be engaging in a bit of jurisdictional overreach. I suspect there’s probably a conflict of laws issue right on point, but it’s so long since I studied conflicts that I’ve forgotten what it might be.