UK defamations laws might change - for the worse... Watch what you post!

[Kym]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...mittee_report/

proposed overhaul to the UK's stringent libel law could have "a chilling effect on those publishing material online", an influential human rights committee warned today.

The tabled amendments to the law of defamation could force website owners to take down defamatory material on request even if there is a valid legal defence to keep it online. That's according to Parliament's human rights joint-select committee, which criticised the draft legislation.

As the law stands right now, there are a number of defences to publishing a statement that damages a person's reputation. One such defence is simply the provable truth: it is defamatory, for instance, to call someone a crook, but it is a justified statement if, say, a court has found them guilty of fraud.

But Clause 5 of the proposed legislation allows someone to order a website to take down a defamatory statement about them regardless of any valid legal defence. If the website complies and censors itself, it can avoid further litigation. If the website operator chooses to stand by the defamatory material then it must run the gauntlet of the High Court.

Read more in the link above!

The dofus proposing these changes needs a serious adjustment, but I won't be able to say that in the future

[Bally]

Have you looked at the changes to the law that Roxon is proposing in Australia, re the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination laws. It will effectively become illegal to offend someone. On top of that once the primae facie case is made, IE that the comment was made, the onus will be on the person that made the comment to justify the ccomment. So you call me gay, three people hear it, I take offense, and you have to prove how that is not offensive to me

Nice work, sits well with the 10 year internet data collection, and easy access to this data that she proposed

Along with taxing the air we breath, soon they will find away to make our thoughts illegal, now they are proposing that our words will be.

[Lance B]

Have you looked at the changes to the law that Roxon is proposing in Australia, re the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination laws. It will effectively become illegal to offend someone. On top of that once the primae facie case is made, IE that the comment was made, the onus will be on the person that made the comment to justify the ccomment. So you call me gay, three people hear it, I take offense, and you have to prove how that is not offensive to me

Nice work, sits well with the 10 year internet data collection, and easy access to this data that she proposed

Along with taxing the air we breath, soon they will find away to make our thoughts illegal, now they are proposing that our words will be.

Unbelievable.

[Mathy]

Have you looked at the changes to the law that Roxon is proposing in Australia, re the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination laws. It will effectively become illegal to offend someone. On top of that once the primae facie case is made, IE that the comment was made, the onus will be on the person that made the comment to justify the ccomment. So you call me gay, three people hear it, I take offense, and you have to prove how that is not offensive to me

Nice work, sits well with the 10 year internet data collection, and easy access to this data that she proposed

Along with taxing the air we breath, soon they will find away to make our thoughts illegal, now they are proposing that our words will be.

Is there a link you can supply to this? cheers Deb

[Bally]

Some useful links

Read this and be horrified. Note the point form break down of the major impacts
This is a great summary paper with the references so that you can go look at the proposal yourself.
http://ipa.org.au/library/publicatio...fact-sheet.pdf

A less dry view of the proposal, but very informative and entertaining.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/...t-police/desc/

THe view over at the Australian, the view got darker as it became clearer the extent of the changes, but not a bad start.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1226534893538

THe quote, I love that Ms Roxon feels the need to enforce expected behaviour on us all. Expected by her I gather
''Making protections and obligations clearer for individuals and organisations will help everyone understand what behaviour is expected, and will provide certainty,'' Ms Roxon said.
http://www.smh.com.au

[Lance B]

''Making protections and obligations clearer for individuals and organisations will help everyone understand what behaviour is expected, and will provide certainty,'' Ms Roxon said.
http://www.smh.com.au

I love this bit, "what behaviour is expected, and will provide certainty" Expected behaviour? According to whom? Certainty? For whom?

How long will it be before you will not be able to "offend the government"? Totalitarian governments here we come again.

[livio]

Wow this will be cool, in some ways I hope this one gets up. Then both Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon who offend me will have to justify their rants. We could have them locked up in the legal system for years.

Seriously though so much for a fair go. Better get your kids to study law, I can see the legal system being the only area to benefit from this.

Kind Regards
Livio

[ameerat42]

Pfbrr-rbbrff-ppff, and a couple of ls mixed in!

Or words to that effect!

Piddy the world didn't end after all!

[old dog]

I`m going back into my cave right now...and I`m not coming out. Bye

[Ian]

I`m going back into my cave right now...and I`m not coming out. Bye

is ther a second cave handy? if there is i might join you if allowed ian(aka pappa smurf)

[ameerat42]

(Should I say it's a load of CARP! Maybe not. Not CARP, that is.)

[Steve Axford]

Mmm - the "ipa facts" have been around for a long, long time as a right wing political "fact" sheet. Like any purely political publication, they should be taken with a bucket of salt.

[Bally]

sure, and in fact the proposal proably doesn't exist at all.

The IPA is right wing, but that doesn't mean their interpretation is flawed. and more interestingly is the number of left wing organisations complaining about the proposal. Civil rights lawyers and organisations, ex judges, even people within the discrimination infrastructure. It is just another poorly thought out proposal. and it back doors in some of the governments personal wish lists. I don't disagree anti discrimination laws, I think this potential is implementation is just wrong.

More importantly, as usual, the response to any comment on the activities of this government, people get all them and us. Hey perhaps I am the only person that sees fault in this, but I doubt it. Government needs to be challenged whern they try this sort of crap legislation, we are weaker by everyone just assuming a default side and not being willing to critically analyse their every move. Particularly with a government that is so willing to play with our rights

[Bally]

Lance, it is just so predictable how aussies vote like sheep, so the incumbent government knows they can get away with anything, and that the only push back will be a small percentage of swing voters. If this happened in Europe there would be protestors in the streets. THey remember the jack boot of totalitarian government.

We have rights, why the freak would we consider giving them up just so a party can satisfy its immediate need for individual members to push personal barrows

[Lance B]

Lance, it is just so predictable how aussies vote like sheep, so the incumbent government knows they can get away with anything, and that the only push back will be a small percentage of swing voters. If this happened in Europe there would be protestors in the streets. THey remember the jack boot of totalitarian government.

We have rights, why the freak would we consider giving them up just so a party can satisfy its immediate need for individual members to push personal barrows

We fought wars for freedom from oppressive regimes, particularly WWII against the Nazi's, who, funnily enough, didn't like to be criticised either.

[norwest]

We get the chance to have our say this year, as we always do. Then Bishop Tony will have a majority and can legislate compulsory 'Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday". By the way, much of that IPA statement is fear mongering, exaggerated bull dust. It's going to endanger freedom of religion? The flying of the Australian flag? Prevent people from wearing a crucifix? My wife has a Canadian saying, 'Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.'

The IPA leans so far to the right they are forced to walk in perpetual clockwise circles.

[Lance B]

We get the chance to have our say this year, as we always do. Then Bishop Tony will have a majority and can legislate compulsory 'Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday". By the way, much of that IPA statement is fear mongering, exaggerated bull dust.

Interesting stance considering your thoughts on "Bishop Tony" and that he will legislate "compulsory Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday"

It's going to endanger freedom of religion? The flying of the Australian flag? Prevent people from wearing a crucifix? My wife has a Canadian saying, 'Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.'

I am sure that is what they thought when every other totalitarian regime said when they wanted to gain power. Don't let these people snow job us into thinking it is ok to stifle free speech under the guise of protecting someone from being offended. Roxon's desire to "not offend anyone" will hit at every day life even innocent joke telling around the water cooler, the thin edge of the wedge as they say. People like Roxon (hopefully innocently) think they are doing the right thing in "not being allowed to offend anyone", but the trouble is, these things are then taken to the nth degree and you won't be able to say anything to anyone that may have even the slightest degree of offence and people will milk it for all it's worth. Maybe they should have had the law in when Julia Gillard decided to call Abbott a misogynist or is that why the (Australian) Macquarie dictionary very hastily changed it's meaning right after the fact? No other dictionary has altered that meaning, only the Australian Macquarie dictionary. Unbelievable.

[norwest]

Interesting stance considering your thoughts on "Bishop Tony" and that he will legislate "compulsory Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday"

And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd.

I am sure that is what they thought when every other totalitarian regime said when they wanted to gain power.

We have a totalitarian regime? Man the walls, arm the populous and get the wife and kids into the underground shelter. No 'condescending smiley' required.

Up to nearly 20 comments and no one has actually looked at the proposal, just lined up on the usually sides, as I said, Australians are sheep.

Why do assume no one has the common sense to look at the proposal before commenting on said proposal?

I read 'it' when it was released, quite a deal of differing opinions since and my comments thus far in this thread are based on the extreme nature of the fear mongering.

I'm actually a moderate and think our best alternative could be Malcolm Turnbull, himself a moderate and one of the very few small 'l' liberals left in this country and I think the legislation we have at present is sufficient. However, the claims made in here parroting the fear mongering exaggerations of a far right political lobby group and adding some spice with words such as nazi, totalitarian ect. are more at home in one of Alan Jones morning rants and a Pauline Hanson maiden speech.

You and I will soon get to vote out a party considering any legislation not to our liking and replacing them with the alternative that best suits our requirements. Or, is there a risk the existing government will suspend elections indefinitely and declare martial law, just like a totalitarian regime would have done?

[Lance B]

And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd.

So, you're saying that your opinion isn't relevent? If so, why post it? I really don't understand your comment, or why then you stated it.

We have a totalitarian regime? Man the walls, arm the populous and get the wife and kids into the underground shelter.

So, you're saying it could never happen? Ever?

No 'condescending smiley' required.

Condescending smiley?

Why do assume no one has the common sense to look at the proposal before commenting on said proposal?

I read 'it' when it was released, quite a deal of differing opinions since and my comments thus far in this thread are based on the extreme nature of the fear mongering.

I'm actually a moderate and think our best alternative could be Malcolm Turnbull, himself a moderate and one of the very few small 'l' liberals left in this country and I think the legislation we have at present is sufficient. However, the claims made in here parroting the fear mongering exaggerations of a far right political lobby group and adding some spice with words such as nazi, totalitarian ect. are more at home in one of Alan Jones morning rants and a Pauline Hanson maiden speech.

Wow, we are drawing a long bow on this one. I would have you know I am a moderate as well. All I am saying is that we need to be mindful and not be complacent about letting politicians make rash decisions such as this paricular legislation. As Steve Axford has stated, "Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.", which is a fair point and quite correct looking at Australia's political history and it seems that you are making a similar point, but that doesn't mean that it will always stay this way and the very fact that we think we are moderate means that it can make it easy for these sorts of dangerous legislations to be passed as most of us have the habit of thinking "she'll be right, mate" as "no one would do the wrong thing" thus, due to this apathy, possibly allowing certain agenda's through parliament without due diligence.

You and I will soon get to vote out a party considering any legislation not to our liking and replacing them with the alternative that best suits our requirements. Or, is there a risk the existing government will suspend elections indefinitely and declare martial law, just like a totalitarian regime would have done?

What? Where did this come from? Never said that and never intimated that our current government had totalitarian overtones, but that doesn't mean that factions and minority groups do not. Like it or not, minority groups like the Greens, have certain power over the current Labor Party and can wield this power to try to get what they want and this can be dangerous. I said that there is the possibility that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that we need to be vigilant and not just allow this sort of legisaltion through without proper discussions and debate. Freedom of speech is a very important aspect of our rights.

Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match so I leave you to your own thoughts. For me, I'd rather this not be allowed to pass as law, and if it does, then we deserve what we get.

[norwest]

So, you're saying that your opinion isn't relevent? If so, why post it? I really don't understand your comment, or why then you stated it.

No and please don't attempt spin. I said "And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd." How do you turn that into I'm saying my opinion isn't relevant so why post it? Don't try to bull.... a bull......



So, you're saying it could never happen? Ever?

You know I didn't say that so why ask?



Condescending smiley?

Reference to the smiley in your post



Wow, we are drawing a long bow on this one. I would have you know I am a moderate as well.

If the comments made by you in this thread could be considered moderate in any way shape or form then I'll flap my arms and fly around the wildlife forum. They are alarmist, worst case scenario fear mongering and devoid of moderation.

All I am saying is that we need to be mindful and not be complacent about letting politicians make rash decisions such as this paricular legislation. As Steve Axford has stated, "Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.", which is a fair point and quite correct looking at Australia's political history and it seems that you are making a similar point, but that doesn't mean that it will always stay this way and the very fact that we think we are moderate means that it can make it easy for these sorts of dangerous legislations to be passed as most of us have the habit of thinking "she'll be right, mate" as "no one would do the wrong thing" thus, due to this apathy, possibly allowing certain agenda's through parliament without due diligence.

Yes, due diligence. Like ummmm errrrr, lets see. Well, if we don't like a particular legislation how about we vote them out and replace them with others of our preference with different policies and promising to repeal the previous legislation? Now there's a new one, eh? I think they call it democracy.



What? Where did this come from? Never said that and never intimated that our current government had totalitarian overtones, but

Then, when you say "when every other totalitarian regime", leave out the 'other' and it won't include the present.


that doesn't mean that factions and minority groups do not. Like it or not, minority groups like the Greens, have certain power over the current Labor Party and can wield this power to try to get what they want and this can be dangerous. I said that there is the possibility that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that we need to be vigilant and not just allow this sort of legisaltion through without proper discussions and debate. Freedom of speech is a very important aspect of our rights.

And in both Federal and State parliament, minority groups have had the same position of balance of power, like the shooters party, one nation, family first and other parties from wacko extremists through to religious sects and the loonie left have in the past, have at present (shooters party in NSW?) and will in the future. And they get the boot in the next election or the new parliament has a majority and the minority loses their balance of power status. As mentioned previously, it's called democracy.

Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match so I leave you to your own thoughts. For me, I'd rather this not be allowed to pass as law, and if it does, then we deserve what we get.

And I've said I think the existing legislation is sufficient and if, and that's a very big 'IF', the new proposal was to come into being and we don't like it then we can vote the buggers out and have it repealed by a like minded alternative party. I think I previously mentioned what that's called.