Beware Trolls! New Libel Law in UK

I guess most of us didn't think that kind of guideline would ever be in a forum which presents itself as one espousing free speech and the ideals of the 60s counterculture.

Perhaps someone would like to tell me what this "we will cooperate with the authorities" attitude has to do with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJKbDz4EZio"]Mario Savio "The Machine Speech" on The Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1964 - YouTube


And let's not forget this:

Once you stop fighting it's over. Close down the website. It's never been anything more than a cleverlymarketed facade for a hedonistic trip down memory lane for burnt-out pot-smokers who have long given up any kind of fight or aspirations for a better world - and are willing to make sacrifices for it.

 

How does espousing free speech and the ideals of the 60's counterculture equate to expecting Skip to take the fall for anyone if the authorities come knocking?

 

i'm not blaming skip for anything, sorry if it appeared that way. the UK government knows what it's doing - intimidating internet users is the best way to discourage dissent and alternative dialogue. if your identity is always at risk of being visible you're going to be less happy saying what you believe if it's different from what is culturally acceptable. anonymity and privacy are enemies of conservativism.

 

Its amazing!!!

EVERYONE AGREES TO SOMETHING THEY DONT READ!!

 

You missed my point.

It's not about the specifics of this proposed legislation. It might be reasonable. But the precedent it sets for Internet legislature is very dangerous for all of us.

We need a place to just be people, a place where we're not controlled nor have various arbitrary rules and regulations imposed upon us. A place governments cannot exert direct authority.

The beauty of the Internet was always its great freedom and vastness. This law would be the first step in reducing that freedom. And when you've compromised once, it's much easier to compromise the next time. If this goes through, if Internet users of the world don't fight this sort of legislature tooth and nail, we will lose this amazing creation we have. Or rather, it will morph to serve the agenda of the governments and corporations of the world and you'll find yourself thinking things like "I remember when you could just invent a random username online"

The Internet doesn't need to be regulated by fucking bureaucrats and officials. We, the users, can keep it clean and healthy enough. It's not like the sort of thing this legislation would make illegal isn't already against the rules of just about any website where it is possible to leave a message.

And when people are actually threatening others or otherwise committing crime, it is currently very possible (in fact, easy) to get the authorities involved and achieve the same effect.

Instead of coddling the idiots who can't take a virtual insult, just slap a warning label on it (like they do with games)

WARNING: PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET MIGHT BE ASSHOLES.

 

amen

 

do we understand the distinction between trolling

and general difference in opinion?

if not

good luck.

 

Whew!

OK, so I can still say it is my opinion that Mitt Romney is an asswipe?

I don't have any proof, other than what he says and what has been reported from reputable sources that he forced a kid down in HS and cut off his bleach blond hair for appearing to be gay and that he wore cop uniforms to mess with ppl and got away with it because of his position of privilege.

It ain't libel if he's and asswipe!

 

No, you missed the point.

It's about going after the previously anonymous assholes who commit defamation by libel on the internet.

These are the cowardly assholes who want to be coddled.

 

My concern with the aforementioned guideline, and not neccessarily the libel law (sorry to take the thread off topic, and I have my concerns about that as well) is not neccessarily that HF could potentially be instrumental in any drug related arrest. I seriously doubt the feds are going to be after me because I once wrote a trip report.

What concerns me is the fact that some of my political ideas and ideals would have been considered revolutionary 10-20 years ago. Now, because of broad blanket terorrism laws and a complete redefining of what our constitutional rights are regarding arrest and trial, my views could be relabeled. Conspiracy to terrorism? Perhaps.

Some people on this forum have even advocated violent means to overthrow the government. Under new laws that would definitely be viewed as a threat and a potential criminal activity by the US government.

And it worries me that HF, despite the fact that the webmaster seems to be as anti-government as the rest of us, makes it clear in the guidelines that they are more than willing to work with law enforcement if the law deems ANY activity here illegal, without making any exceptions or specifying what defines an illegal activity.

Am I overreacting? Probably. But in lieu of recently passed laws regarding terrorism and citizen's rights, I think its best if I keep my political views to myself on the internet.

 

Jurisdiction would be a prob. This is a UK law in the making. What does that mean to a U.S. citizen in the U.S. under the guarantee of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The ACLU (and a host of other orgs) would be on any effort to enforce any of this infringement of our First Amendment rights. They are on record for defending the KKK - not a popular cause, but their focus has always been freedom of expression, even for those who don't express anything worthy.

Sort of Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Now, libel and threats and dangerous speech (yelling fire in a crowded auditorium) is outside the protection of the First Amendment - as determined by the courts. It has always been so in the U.S. even before the Internet.

 

Of course...... The internet depicts THE REAL WORLD and sadly the REAL WORLD sucks!

 

I think thats why he specified the UK people should be extra careful (referring to jurisdiction)....and then sort of included everyone because everything posted here is stored and who knows what laws might come up in the future

that disclaimer on the bottom of every Hip page is a pretty important thing to always remember with every post

 

Um, no, I got that. I understand the proposed law.

My point was that it is not necessary. Defamation on the Internet is not a big enough problem that it warrants legislation, and it is already very easy to deal with actual criminal activity online. Thus, this law serves no purpose but setting a scary precedent.

The Internet as a free harbor is much more important than preventing hurt feelings in a tiny minority of people.

That's why they've invented extradition. If someone were extradited over something like this, it would be a momentous facepalm moment, but dumber shit happens on a regular basis.

 

...And so, the internet being a "safe harbor" has always been an illusion. This bill would make it easier for the victim, not the authorities who have had this power all along anyway.

 

I think Jimmy's point is that this law, like many laws, has the potential to be abused by the authorities.

 

I thought I'd throw up two links related to discussions about U. S. authorities having already gone after what they want:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=417668&highlight=twitter+subpoenaed&f=625

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7187239&highlight=twitter#post7187239

 

NO FUN ALLOWED!

PHEAR YOUR GOVERNMENT!

i mean,

your government is perfect and can do no wrong, i really love them a whole lot, they're the bestest! YUMMUH!

 

People are celebrating this?

 

I agree with shale. and I was freaked out, when Skip said defamatory, because it's a rather direly vague word. It's scary to think that the government is watching us so closely, that anything that's considered "mean spirited" or "untrue" the government comes and sues your ass. It's really insane. What about conspiracy theorist? Are they going to say immediately that they're all in trouble? For stating theory? It sounds bogus to me, but of course the UK is doing this. America's trying, but it's hard for those corporate fat-cats to get around the First Amendment. Well, I better shut up before London sends out an ATB on me.

Humanity is going to hell in a hand-basket! And London doesn't want to stop "cyber bullying," it's just a sad excuse to spy on people.
defamatory:

Web definitions: (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign.