I do have some sympathy with the gist of what you're saying but on the detail I'm not so sure. For example, my Cameron statement was put in quotes and clearly not intended as a statement of fact - I don't think it would put me in any danger under current libel laws never mind weaker ones envisaged in future. I think I have a responsibility not to make apparently factual claims e.g. about David Cameron unless I can back them up with reasonably reliable evidence.
Of course, making sarcastic,rude and/or witty commentary is something else, which may be part of where you're coming from in comparing blogging to speech. But then again, if I were to say "David Cameron is a twat", I wouldn't be libelling him because it's pretty obvious I don't mean it as a factual statement and there's no risk to his reputation as a result, plus I suspect it falls under "fair comment". (Not to mention the fact, which I think is irrelevant to libel, that nobody cares what I think about David Cameron.) But if I claim he's a paedophile that's a completely different thing, because there's a factual statement involved and a reader might believe it to be true.
Anyway, point is: bloggers are publishing something, and the fact that it's generally perceived as no more harmful than a chat down the pub shouldn't blind us to the fact that everything published on the internet is potentially viewable by anyone, anywhere in the world, with potentially damaging consequences for individuals' reputations. Maybe there's scope for a less severe threshold for bloggers, but it does seem to me that one should be cautious about such things: perhaps it would be better to educate bloggers than simply to let them off the hook.
Obviously, IANAL. I would think that "I heard on the internet that David Cameron is a paedophile" would not be libellous, whereas the simple statement that he is one would be. But I'm not sure if that's right. So everything I've said might be bollocks.
my Cameron statement was put in quotes and clearly not intended as a statement of fact Granted. I'm am concerned about the balance between clarity of the law (vital) and overinclusion because fine-tuning pre-existing concepts of law to new communication methods is too challenging.
The borders of 'apparently factual claims' on blogs, Twitter, etc are more elastic than other places, partly because punctuation on the web is rather inconsistent. (As are, I hear, treatments of satirical statements by libel courts.) Field limits and twitter constraints mean I repeatedly muck mine about.
Published material before web blogging and twitter-alikes wasn't instantaneous so even when there wasn't peer or editorial review, self-publishers had built-in time for reflection. With the instantaneous communication world embracing everyone there's now an actual expectation that in most cases checking before publication is limited, if it takes place at all.
Overall I'm worried by the lack of clarity and potential for the better parts to fall down if the rest is too wide, as its overall the first sign of a real improvement which is desperately needed.
Just realised a_llusiveMarch 18 2011, 17:26:08 UTC
the above comment is an unintended but clear example of poor proof-reading by a self-publisher, as so often when I write and rewrite at speed. "I'm am" Bother.
Of course, making sarcastic,rude and/or witty commentary is something else, which may be part of where you're coming from in comparing blogging to speech. But then again, if I were to say "David Cameron is a twat", I wouldn't be libelling him because it's pretty obvious I don't mean it as a factual statement and there's no risk to his reputation as a result, plus I suspect it falls under "fair comment". (Not to mention the fact, which I think is irrelevant to libel, that nobody cares what I think about David Cameron.) But if I claim he's a paedophile that's a completely different thing, because there's a factual statement involved and a reader might believe it to be true.
Anyway, point is: bloggers are publishing something, and the fact that it's generally perceived as no more harmful than a chat down the pub shouldn't blind us to the fact that everything published on the internet is potentially viewable by anyone, anywhere in the world, with potentially damaging consequences for individuals' reputations. Maybe there's scope for a less severe threshold for bloggers, but it does seem to me that one should be cautious about such things: perhaps it would be better to educate bloggers than simply to let them off the hook.
Obviously, IANAL. I would think that "I heard on the internet that David Cameron is a paedophile" would not be libellous, whereas the simple statement that he is one would be. But I'm not sure if that's right. So everything I've said might be bollocks.
Reply
The borders of 'apparently factual claims' on blogs, Twitter, etc are more elastic than other places, partly because punctuation on the web is rather inconsistent. (As are, I hear, treatments of satirical statements by libel courts.) Field limits and twitter constraints mean I repeatedly muck mine about.
Published material before web blogging and twitter-alikes wasn't instantaneous so even when there wasn't peer or editorial review, self-publishers had built-in time for reflection. With the instantaneous communication world embracing everyone there's now an actual expectation that in most cases checking before publication is limited, if it takes place at all.
Overall I'm worried by the lack of clarity and potential for the better parts to fall down if the rest is too wide, as its overall the first sign of a real improvement which is desperately needed.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment