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.

[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)

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Geoff Port]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, this is a PROPOSAL from a member of a minority government with an election coming up. I doubt if any concrete legislation in regard to this matter would get much breathing space. I agree with norwest, after the election results have been posted we will almost certainly have to contend with Abbott the Rabbit. Now that IS scarey.

[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.

[Steve Axford]

I suspect that its not really helpful to liken any Australian political party to the Nazis. None seem inclined to mass murder - neither Labour nor Liberals nor the Greens nor Katter. Let's save the extreme analogies for extreme situations. Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards. Anyone want to live in Syria, or Somalia?

[Lance B]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, this is a PROPOSAL from a member of a minority government with an election coming up. I doubt if any concrete legislation in regard to this matter would get much breathing space. I agree with norwest, after the election results have been posted we will almost certainly have to contend with Abbott the Rabbit. Now that IS scarey.

That is the trouble, the Greens have the sway and they have used it to influence legislation introduction.

- - - Updated - - -

I suspect that its not really helpful to liken any Australian political party to the Nazis. None seem inclined to mass murder - neither Labour nor Liberals nor the Greens nor Katter.

Very true, Steve. However, stifling free speech so as "not to offend anyone" will not necessarily be used by the government, but by individuals with nefarious intentions, ie suing people for the slightest indiscretions, only the lawyers will get rich and we'll all be too scared to say anything for fear of offending someone, somewhere. All good intentions but with dramatic negative results, ie throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

Let's save the extreme analogies for extreme situations. Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.

Unfortuntely, it seems to be changing.

Anyone want to live in Syria, or Somalia?

Yep, no chance of free speech there.

[Bally]

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.