Freedom of speech online?

[DeZmond]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7056659.stm

Having read this article it strikes me that it is so easy to post a comment onto a website, either in the shoutbox or on a forum post, that could in some way be taken as libellous against a person or organisation. Is it right that an online post is treated in the same way as a written, published comment? Or is it simply the case that due to the very nature of online communities, it is wrong to label comments in this way?

Let the debate commence.

 

[waterproofbob]

Well it was only a matter of time until lawyers got complete control of the internet saying that I wander what the three's comments were as the fact that

While the e-mail addresses of the three fans have to be handed over, he refused an application to disclose the e-mail addresses of a further eight posters because their comments were "plainly intended as jokes and unlikely to be taken seriously".

was also said would say that those 3 obviously took it way way too far.

 

[Gombol]

i was told off (RL) for somthing i posted on a forum once...venting my opinion about our ATC Sqn...only way i could make them shut up about it, was to get the thread removed...people say "on the internet you have nothing but freedom of speach", but what about the goverment shutting sites down cause they dont like whats on them, and stuff like that?

 

[Turang]

because there is Freedom of speech and also protecting the innoccent rememmber, you can go far to say something as long as it does not drastically offend another

 

[Ronin Storm]

Where do we derive the idea that our speech is somehow free?

Perhaps it is from the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)?

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So, freedom of opinion and expression. Does that equate to free speech? And if so, how free is your speech?

In my opinion, that's well guided by the first article of the UDHR.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The bit that stands out, for me, is "act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". Defaming another person, which is what libel boils down to, really doesn't stand up in the spirit of brotherhood.

So, our speech is free as long as we respect each other. Which seems perfectly fair to me.

In fact, that's also covered:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Again, pulling out the pertinent piece, "subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others". Rights and freedoms of others. Which includes the right to not be persecuted. Sure, some persecution is more severe than others. Point still stands, though.

Online, offline, doesn't matter. Freedom of speech isn't freedom to do what you like and damn the rest. It's freedom to be yourself with respect for others.

Not enough facts are presented in the BBC article for me to tell what was said and done but on the assumption that the postings of the three individuals were deliberately, maliciously intended to harm their target with lies then the ruling would be completely justified, in my opinion.

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

I think this is just plain stupid, if they dont like what they're reading online, even if its about them, they should just stop reading it, yes i might be naïve, but really all this sort of behaviour is going to do is cause more ppl to go offshore with their internet browsing and habbits, and as such generate revenue for foreign advertisers and the like.

Im no expert on freedom of speech, but if those people in that article are getting mad then surely the comments they wish to sue(or whatever) must be close to the truth, also:

What does libel* mean?

*i've heard the word and know the pronunciation.

 

[waterproofbob]

What does libel* mean?

*i've heard the word and know the pronunciation.

In English law, libel is defamation (the publishing of what is false or derogatory) in permanent form, such as in writing, printing, and radio and TV broadcasts, while slander is not in permanent form, so that it is in spoken words or in gestures.

I believe that is correct.

 

[Mortarmon]

There is no freedom of speech.

OT : Democracy wont work i think . because wrong things can happen if the majority jut want to. If there are 10 people , and 8 of them vote that the others should be set in prison , they would. And if the goverment says they cant set them in prison , there isnt a democracy.

 

[Ronin Storm]

And if the goverment says they cant set them in prison , there isnt a democracy.

I think you may be confusing participatory and representative democracies there.

In the UK and US, for example, we have freedom to vote for who we want to represent us. They then make decisions on our behalf. If they lied about what they were going to do then we don't vote for them again. There are (some?) other options but largely it's not about whether or not a thing happens but who we want to make stuff happen for us.

The nearest system to the one where your vote works in the way you think it does is probably Switzerland, where they have a direct democracy; their government makes decisions but the citizens can call a referendum and overturn parliamentary decisions.

In any case, the state of democracy that you refer to is entirely classical and theoretical in nature. In wider practice, more practical forms of democracy are used. This is probably a good thing, in my opinion, because I haven't got an effin' clue (because I've never investigated) whether we should have better trains or spend more on roads or put money into flood defences over child care in hospitals and I believe that most people don't have that knowledge either.

Bringing this back to topic, this makes me wonder whether we should accept (as anything more than opinion) the impact of uninformed decision. How much do people really know when they go to vote for their representative? How much should they have to know about the relevant issues, the stances of the different candidates, their options for voting and so on?

I've only started to use my vote in the last couple of years because I've decided to start paying attention to the issues, who is involved, what they stand for. Before I felt that my near total ignorance on the issues should bar me from contributing by voting, and so I didn't vote. Now, I'm only slightly informed but improving over time. I opted out. I sometimes wonder if that could/should be enforced...

 

[Haven]

Freedom is very much dictated by the desire to prosecute, pretty much anything can be taken as Llibellous given enough time to sift through our antiquated legal system.

Sadly the desire to litigate against is usually driven by either a need to suppress public information or simple greed.

 

[Gombol]

omg, why do you all make such long posts! >_<

 

[Ronin Storm]

[mod]The Soap Box is for constructive and (mostly) intelligent discussion and not for idle posting. Please keep any comment that begins "omg" or similar out of here.[/mod]

 

[Ghostwolf67]

Words are weapons. The media, if anything, has demonstrated that quite aptly. And if you set out to harshly attack someones character then there should be consequences. My only fear with these sorts of lawsuits is that they will make people afraid to speak their mind. Even in places like this.

Still there is a pretty big difference in my mind between just talking and slandering someone.

 

[Gombol]

[mod]The Soap Box is for constructive and (mostly) intelligent discussion and not for idle posting. Please keep any comment that begins "omg" or similar out of here.[/mod]

omg, your mean! (i started that with a quote >_>)

i still say theres never any freedom...america "claims" its got freedom...but if they are free why are there so many arrests...or...laws...theres laws for everything...i even saw one for bathing a horse =/

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

Its unfortunate that in any lawless zone(im guessing) that someone always rises to power over the rest, true freedom would be a world of equals, but then we'd all starve or something.


Someone mentioned it has to be permenant for it to be libel, i dont see how thats true of the internet, harddrives fail allthe time, so now theres the "chance of it being permenant" like if for example someone is slanderous and someone catches it on film and puts it say on live TV, is that then libelous as they have a permentant record, AW DAMN IT im rambling, but - what is REALLY permentant

Freedom is very much dictated by the desire to prosecute, pretty much anything can be taken as Llibellous given enough time to sift through our antiquated legal system.

Sadly the desire to litigate against is usually driven by either a need to suppress public information or simple greed.

Intresting read haven.