Theo, Why do you call this a "dangerous" precedent? In my country (USA), as perhaps in yours, freedom of speech has limits, and libel is one of them. The word "skank" in (American) English is extremely vulgar and insulting, what US law would call "per se" libelous. Why should anyone have to tolerate that??
While she may have a case it could lead to anyone who feels 'offended' by something written about them to be able to silence the bloggers. Politicians spring to mind.
Theo, Perhaps we are addressing two different issues:
Mine is, why should this blogger be able to hide when what he/she wrote was so obviously malicious and libelous?
Your is, should powerful interests be able to silence critics?
Perhaps the simple solution (and AFAIK the law in both the US and UK) is: as long as that criticism is neither vulgar nor "per se" libelous (accusations of a crime, for ex.), the anonymous blogger has little to fear.
So, you can criticize Gordie all you like...just don't call him a crook. A dim-wit is fine, a moron is a stretch (isn't it?). Etc.
Is it in fact libellous, or merely one person's perception of what physical attributes constitute ugliness? Taking legal action over such comments smacks of over-sensitivity & an inflated perception of self worth.
I see no benefit in guaranteed anonymity. I wish to use a name and avatar so that I do not get harassed in my real life by people who comb the net. That does not mean that if I do harm I should be protected. I should be free to use my real name in public and call the President and idiot or say "The King is a Fink." If I suggest violence or spread a rumor that the President has sex with underage gophers then I can expect a knock on my door from the Secret Service. Theo has a point though. The legal system has been abused in Singapore to silence people.
Excuse me, thought I heard something, I'll be right back.
5 comments:
Theo, Why do you call this a "dangerous" precedent? In my country (USA), as perhaps in yours, freedom of speech has limits, and libel is one of them. The word "skank" in (American) English is extremely vulgar and insulting, what US law would call "per se" libelous. Why should anyone have to tolerate that??
While she may have a case it could lead to anyone who feels 'offended' by something written about them to be able to silence the bloggers. Politicians spring to mind.
Theo, Perhaps we are addressing two different issues:
Mine is, why should this blogger be able to hide when what he/she wrote was so obviously malicious and libelous?
Your is, should powerful interests be able to silence critics?
Perhaps the simple solution (and AFAIK the law in both the US and UK) is: as long as that criticism is neither vulgar nor "per se" libelous (accusations of a crime, for ex.), the anonymous blogger has little to fear.
So, you can criticize Gordie all you like...just don't call him a crook. A dim-wit is fine, a moron is a stretch (isn't it?). Etc.
Now, Darling, on the other hand...... ;-)
Is it in fact libellous, or merely one person's perception of what physical attributes constitute ugliness?
Taking legal action over such comments smacks of over-sensitivity & an inflated perception of self worth.
I see no benefit in guaranteed anonymity. I wish to use a name and avatar so that I do not get harassed in my real life by people who comb the net. That does not mean that if I do harm I should be protected. I should be free to use my real name in public and call the President and idiot or say "The King is a Fink." If I suggest violence or spread a rumor that the President has sex with underage gophers then I can expect a knock on my door from the Secret Service. Theo has a point though. The legal system has been abused in Singapore to silence people.
Excuse me, thought I heard something, I'll be right back.
Post a Comment