Just wanted to hear your opinions, but especially religious people, about what it means to be 'free'.
In my opinion the term 'free' or 'freedom' is used rather loosely. In this country we only have freedom to a certain extent, the government and laws of the land place certain restrictions on what we can and cannot do with such freedom. Whilst we in the UK live in a democracy and have much more freedom than say, Iraq and the women there, maybe the term freedom is used to describe one extreme to another.
Its very clear: personal freedoms stop at the point where they impinge on the freedoms of others. Thats why its right that smoking in public places is banned, because the smoker is denying the right of many people not to inhale poisonous gases etc.
We have freedoms in the UK that people elsewhere (even the US) can only dream of, including state benefits and healthcare etc. We can practice religion, politics, free speech all without interferance or intimidation. We probably have the highest standards of news reporting in the world. Only restrictions on prtests outside Westminster are wrong, as far as I know. Funny, cos we take all of this for granted.
'We can practice religion, politics, free speech all without interferance or intimidation.'
Have to disagree on the practice of religion to a certain extent. The Islamist Abul Hamza was charged for racial incitement in his sermons delivered in London - so we are not as free in religious terms to speak 'our mind'. Whilst Hamza was wrong to preach such trash, laws imposed superceeded the right of every individual to free speech.
Originally posted by Imm12: 'We can practice religion, politics, free speech all without interferance or intimidation.'
Have to disagree on the practice of religion to a certain extent. The Islamist Abul Hamza was charged for racial incitement in his sermons delivered in London - so we are not as free in religious terms to speak 'our mind'. Whilst Hamza was wrong to preach such trash, laws imposed superceeded the right of every individual to free speech.
Thats because inciting hatred impinges on the rights of others. Freedom of speech must be limited by this fact, in the same way that freedom of religion wouldn't stretch to a religion that forced it followers to commit mass murder.
Originally posted by Imm12: Have to disagree on the practice of religion to a certain extent. The Islamist Abul Hamza was charged for racial incitement in his sermons delivered in London - so we are not as free in religious terms to speak 'our mind'. Whilst Hamza was wrong to preach such trash, laws imposed superceeded the right of every individual to free speech.
Only where incitement to such hatreds might result in violence. That's the basis of this law.
Of course there are some "restrictions" as to what constitutes free speech. Whether there should or shouldn't be is open to debate. I take the line that, freedom must come attached with certain responsibilities - its an existentialist truism. If you act irresponsibly, you're acting in bad faith, and forefeit your rights.
Libel is a good case in hand. Libel laws override free speech because it would be totally irresponsible and damaging, if you could say what you pleased about anything.
Therefore, if you say "Nigel Boilersuit eats iron railings and has sexual intercourse with his sister", I take you to court and you forefeit your rights to whatever's in your bank account.
Nigel Boilersuit eats iron railings and has sexual intercourse with his sister
sadly you cannot have the £3.50 in my bank account because nigel boilersuit is not a real person and neither is mizdemeanour, and user names cannot libel or be libelled....
Originally posted by MizDemeanour: Nigel Boilersuit eats iron railings and has sexual intercourse with his sister
sadly you cannot have the £3.50 in my bank account because nigel boilersuit is not a real person and neither is mizdemeanour, and user names cannot libel or be libelled....
waits for very rude response....
If I remember my libel for journalists course, you don't actually have to name anyone to libel them - it only has to be perfectly obvious who's being libelled. I guess this applies to noms de plume - for instance: Stephen King is not the author's real name, but if I accused him of stealing all his best works from Edgar Alan Poe, the author better known as Stephen King would still have the right to sue me.
However, its quite true that Nigel Boilersuit eats iron railings and has sexual intercourse with his sister, (We do things like that out east) and so you're perfectly safe.
The Islamist Abul Hamza was charged for racial incitement in his sermons delivered in London - so we are not as free in religious terms to speak 'our mind'. Whilst Hamza was wrong to preach such trash, laws imposed superceeded the right of every individual to free speech.
He was charged with incitement to violence and hatred, and rightly so.
------ "The lack of flying kangaroos patently proves that Darwinism is false." - blast99
However, its quite true that Nigel Boilersuit eats iron railings and has sexual intercourse with his sister, (We do things like that out east) and so you're perfectly safe.
Fair enough really mate, I've seen your sister.
(And your iron railings...)
------ "The lack of flying kangaroos patently proves that Darwinism is false." - blast99
Originally posted by Imm12: Have to disagree on the practice of religion to a certain extent. The Islamist Abul Hamza was charged for racial incitement in his sermons delivered in London - so we are not as free in religious terms to speak 'our mind'. Whilst Hamza was wrong to preach such trash, laws imposed superceeded the right of every individual to free speech.
Only where incitement to such hatreds might result in violence. That's the basis of this law.
Of course there are some "restrictions" as to what constitutes free speech. Whether there should or shouldn't be is open to debate. I take the line that, freedom must come attached with certain responsibilities - its an existentialist truism. If you act irresponsibly, you're acting in bad faith, and forefeit your rights.
Libel is a good case in hand. Libel laws override free speech because it would be totally irresponsible and damaging, if you could say what you pleased about anything.
Therefore, if you say "Nigel Boilersuit eats iron railings and has sexual intercourse with his sister", I take you to court and you forefeit your rights to whatever's in your bank account.
Total freedom would mean the freedom to starve. Unemployed people have the state to help.
I remember the American show about living on the minimum wage and I was certainly grateful for the NHS.
I gladly part with my income tax knowing I will have assistance if needed.
It's not perfect and it should be reformed to comply with 21st century circumstance, but in this country - it is the sacred cow.
As for libel - before the Mclibel Two, Mcdonalds was untouchable till two people refused to back down. Maddogs and englishmen/women...lol.
Still an uphill struggle, but we are getting there.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Originally posted by Lorenzo De La Cruz: As for libel - before the Mclibel Two, Mcdonalds was untouchable till two people refused to back down. Maddogs and englishmen/women...lol.
Still an uphill struggle, but we are getting there.
Don't quite know what you're suggesting here? No publicly traded company is untouchable. They have to trade in line with stock market regulations and are answerable to their shareholders. If they contravene any laws, they are accountable - just look at Martha Stewart, Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, and Bernie Ebbers.
What I think you're trying to say is that because they are such a huge company McDonalds can afford the best lawyers and use their vast capital weight to intimidate those who stand in their way - which is true, not just of McDonalds, but of every large corporation.
Don't forget, the Mclibel two DID actually libel McDonalds and lost the case. It was a Pyrrhic victory for the company however, which was awarded only £40,000 in damages and no costs (which were estimated at around £10m).
But if you're suggesting that free speech should override libel laws, I must strongly disagree. Libel can be damaging on a personal level to many people, not just powerful businesses and big shot celebs.
Just wanted to hear your opinions, but especially religious people, about what it means to be 'free'.
In my opinion the term 'free' or 'freedom' is used rather loosely. In this country we only have freedom to a certain extent, the government and laws of the land place certain restrictions on what we can and cannot do with such freedom. Whilst we in the UK live in a democracy and have much more freedom than say, Iraq and the women there, maybe the term freedom is used to describe one extreme to another.
Any thoughts?
You got to write that, didn't you? Freedom is the ability to ask awkward questions and not get arrested or shot for it. It's naive to think that every question will get - or have - an answer though.
Freedom is the scope of choice: believe and do what you like so long as it harms (or threatens to harm) no other. What you think is not proscribed by some external agency (though what you do and say may be). Freedom tolerates everything except that which will deny freedom.
These are the principles. They are hard to put into practice. Humans make mistakes and there are difficult judgements to make (such as what is "harm"? what will the costs and benefits of actions be?). So we end up being less free than we'd like. But still considerably freer than many.
Originally posted by Lorenzo De La Cruz: As for libel - before the Mclibel Two, Mcdonalds was untouchable till two people refused to back down. Maddogs and englishmen/women...lol.
Still an uphill struggle, but we are getting there.
Don't quite know what you're suggesting here? No publicly traded company is untouchable. They have to trade in line with stock market regulations and are answerable to their shareholders. If they contravene any laws, they are accountable - just look at Martha Stewart, Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, and Bernie Ebbers.
What I think you're trying to say is that because they are such a huge company McDonalds can afford the best lawyers and use their vast capital weight to intimidate those who stand in their way - which is true, not just of McDonalds, but of every large corporation.
Don't forget, the Mclibel two DID actually libel McDonalds and lost the case. It was a Pyrrhic victory for the company however, which was awarded only £40,000 in damages and no costs (which were estimated at around £10m).
But if you're suggesting that free speech should override libel laws, I must strongly disagree. Libel can be damaging on a personal level to many people, not just powerful businesses and big shot celebs.
On a personal level it can be on equal terms.
The only reason Mcdonalds company proved libel was that the Mclibel two, Helen Steel and Dave Morris, did not have the same resources as the company. Both were unemployed and were then refused legal aid.
They have managed to prove in the European Court that not getting legal aid and consequently having an uneven playing field contravened their human rights.
Before the trial: Any newspaper or organisation accused of libel by Mcdonalds ended up apologising.
Large multinationals were untouchable.
You would not have found books criticising companies such as AOL, Nike, Walmart, Tesco or any other super brands. The publishers would have found it too much of a risk.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Originally posted by Nigel Boilersuit: you don't actually have to name anyone to libel them - it only has to be perfectly obvious who's being libelled.
Yep that is basically it. Slander and libel merely need to insinuate a damaging statement to another person. This does extend to the victims aliases and nom de plumes.
Originally posted by MizDemeanour: and user names cannot libel or be libelled....
This is a fallacy, many people have been found guilty of libel for comments made on the Internet from behind an alias. Using such does not protect you from prosecution for your comments. Read the TOS.
Originally posted by MizDemeanour: and user names cannot libel or be libelled....
This is a fallacy, many people have been found guilty of libel for comments made on the Internet from behind an alias. Using such does not protect you from prosecution for your comments. Read the TOS.
Yes, but its hard to secure a conviction. The corporation would need to get the ISP to give them the person's account details that corresponds to their IP. Then they need to prove which user wrote the comment, as on an unsecured wireless network (what I've got) it could very well be my neighbours, or some guy in a parked car. Then you can use proxification and programmes like PeerGuardian. True anonymity on the Net is alive and well
originally posted by joobs This is a fallacy, many people have been found guilty of libel for comments made on the Internet from behind an alias. Using such does not protect you from prosecution for your comments. Read the TOS.
as nigel has said, it has to be clear who is being libelled, plus of course it has to be patently false, so if i were to say joobs is a grumpy old tosser i'd be safe on all counts...
Originally posted by MizDemeanour: as nigel has said, it has to be clear who is being libelled, plus of course it has to be patently false, so if i were to say joobs is a grumpy old tosser i'd be safe on all counts...
Well only safe if I do not deem that to be defamatory. Remember that libel is a civil case not criminal so when contested the onus would be on you to prove your statement not on me to disprove it.
But as you say you are probably safe on that one since I ain't gonna dispute your assessment irrespective of whether I believe it to be valid or not.
Originally posted by merlinthewizard: Yes, but its hard to secure a conviction.
Not as hard as you may imagine. Most libel cases are not proceeded with due to their cost. Even if one wins often any damages one would be awarded are negligible in comparison with the cost of the prosecution. Really unless you are suing some big company or are flush with cash it isn't worth it.
quote:
The corporation would need to get the ISP to give them the person's account details that corresponds to their IP.
Not a problem once a case is instigated then your ISP and Ch 4 could be made by court order to give details as required.
quote:
Then they need to prove which user wrote the comment, as on an unsecured wireless network (what I've got) it could very well be my neighbours, or some guy in a parked car.
May be a sticky one that. Security would be your responsibility and it would be arguable that your recklessness in having little or none had contributed to said hi-jacking of your account. Regardless of how or who posted in your name, you, as the account holder, may well find you would still be held responsible. You would be the one who would have to prove that you were not guilty - the presumtion of innocence is not applicable in cases of this sort.
It is just like a CEO being responsible for what his employees do - no one says he should actually oversee their every action but he should have reasonable working systems in place to ensure that abuses do not take place.
quote:
Then you can use proxification and programmes like PeerGuardian. True anonymity on the Net is alive and well
True anonymity is far harder to come by than you imagine. It really just depends how much money and resources one is willing to fling at the problem.
Originally posted by MizDemeanour: as nigel has said, it has to be clear who is being libelled, plus of course it has to be patently false, so if i were to say joobs is a grumpy old tosser i'd be safe on all counts...
Well only safe if I do not deem that to be defamatory. Remember that libel is a civil case not criminal so when contested the onus would be on you to prove your statement not on me to disprove it.
don't over estimate yourself... after all, WhoTF is this 'joobs' that i'm not libelling???
Originally posted by Joobs: Well only safe if I do not deem that to be defamatory. Remember that libel is a civil case not criminal so when contested the onus would be on you to prove your statement not on me to disprove it.
don't over estimate yourself... after all, WhoTF is this 'joobs' that i'm not libelling???
Not an over estimation. Libel is civil law and can only be instigated by the aggrieved party. You cannot decide what is libelous to me or not. If I think someone has libeled (or slandered) me then only I can bring the case (or instruct others to do so on my behalf).
Originally posted by Joobs: Well only safe if I do not deem that to be defamatory. Remember that libel is a civil case not criminal so when contested the onus would be on you to prove your statement not on me to disprove it.
don't over estimate yourself... after all, WhoTF is this 'joobs' that i'm not libelling???
Not an over estimation. Libel is civil law and can only be instigated by the aggrieved party. You cannot decide what is libelous to me or not. If I think someone has libeled (or slandered) me then only I can bring the case (or instruct others to do so on my behalf).
yes but i don't know who you 'really' are (should i?) and neither does anybody else on here, or probably anybody reading, so who have i libelled?? not 'you', whoever you are!
i certainly haven't libelled mr. j. oobs of 24 market street, clapham... only an internet creation, unknown and unidentifiable to millions...
