Beware Trolls! New Libel Law in UK

It's more than saying something that hurts someone's feelings.

What the law speaks to is cases where someone is defamed and slandered to the point that they lose their livelihood, etc.; cases where, say for instance, someone is the target of an internet smear campaign of such impact that ruins their life.

 

well...some words do hurt...which is why slander/libel is not covered by FREE SPEECH which is what Skip was talking about.

Governments definitely ARE becoming way too invasive, if you can't handle your own you shouldn't be a politician.

 

But at what point do you say that Rick Santorum actually DESERVES the smear campaign for being such a fucking prick?

 

I'm with you like 95%. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this forum, it's by far the best free speech form internationally. Also, I do know there are limits on free speech (threatening etc.)However, I'm still opposed to this law.

I think the reason so many here on HF are angry about this, is due to the very definition of libel.

This is not to protect our sons and daughters, this is to protect businesses and government from a neg reputation. Skip, what are you going to do about the conspiracy thread? I posted a topic that said JFK was murdered by the NWO, just because I "implied" it was factual, doesn't mean it was a fact rather than opinion. And that I believe is why this law is dangerous.

 

I don't give a shit about Rick Santorum.

 

So, you think the NWO is going to take out a law suit against you?

 

Well the military industrial complex, and people involved in the NWO (David rockefeller etc.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YoUtA-EiIY"]Glenn Beck: David Rockefeller's one world government quote from "Memoirs" book - YouTube

 

The law is for cases like say for instance: The new minister, who no one really likes because he won't let the church softball team wear their church jersey's out for pizza and beer after games, caught the choir director screwing Ms. Jones in a supply closet one night after choir practice. The minister wants to hold counseling sessions with the choir director and his wife. Several of the church's softball players are also in the choir - all these guysl pretty much hate this new preacher. So they decide if the preacher wants to tell Mrs. Choir Directer about finding her husband with Ms. Jones, they will all go on the church's facebook account, with made up names, and talk about how the new minister has tried to seduce them all - men, women, and their children, alike. That'll show him. He will never preach anywhere again.

That's what the law is attempting to address, I believe.

 

my point exactly.
this type of law protects the people that NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT, but those people have some strings attached...and THEY give a shit! and they will make troll/e-badasses (moi) cough up change! i say NAY! NAY!!

 

Well I don't. There's nothing stopping the police from arresting that same priest if a child or two goes to the police, and gets him out of the church that way. I think this law was made to stifle dissent and help the 1% who are probabily slandered on a daily basis... but most of them deserve it.

 

absolutely. the people putting this into law have the most to benefit from it, because they have the most to lose in libel/slander

normal every day people that are victims of libel/slander typically find the means to win their court case as it is usually black and white.

making it "illegal" (i thought it already was?) only makes it easier for people to be arrested and charged for menial 'slander' that bigwigs deem to damage their image...while they maintain their shitty practices that probably deserve the bad rap anyways

 

No, prior to this law, facebook (in the example I gave) does not have to give over info about it's users. Under the new law, they would have to or be sued themselves.

It's like if they contacted HF and Skip said fuck you, I'm not getting involved. The new law would force that or HF could be sued.

It's been too easy for idiots to hide behind the anonymity of the internet and wreck people's lives with lies.

 

...you are an extremely inconsistent and contradicting poster.
-1


fuck this law. the UK can suck my american, circumcised penis.

 

:rofl: :smilielol5:

 

Way to blame the internet, and not society generally. You can get your life wrecked in High School, but you can't sue your peers. The idea that we need to be 'protected' by one another's words is bogus. There is more harm in domestic abuse, but we don't put cameras in private citizens homes. And that's what it comes down to; It's not about Anonymity, it's about PRIVACY!!! The government has NO FUCKING right, to listen in on our conversations.

 

but what if someone is meeeeaaaaan?!

(i agree wholeheartedly...the answer is not omnipresent surveillance, it's learning to cope or make change actively)

 

So, do I understand you if I say that you believe the proposed law has nothing to do with protecting the general public?

 

it doesn't

the general public will still have to defend themselves, as they have been doing, in a court of law, with evidence and make a case to prove libel/slander

(i assume this to be true, because not every document is going to be scanned for violations and then the perpetrator apprehended just for the sake of one citizen. and if that actually is the case, then this proposition is even more of a waste of time than i initially thought)

face it. the 'general public' are the ones that are being put under surveillance with laws such as this. don't be a doofus.

 

Hahaha.. Yes. That's what I believe. (But If I say that the UK government might sue me.) I think this is made specifically for the top 1%, so that their businesses are protected from activists. And it's even more messed up cause they throw the liability on who? Skip. There are millions of posts on this site, it would be nearly impossible to notify the government of EVERYTHING that might result in a faulty/invalid lawsuit.

 

The law definitely needs some more thought put into that aspect of it, I agree with you on that.