tell people the law.. suggestion

but the OP of that thread didn't accuse anyone of murder, she said........ - oh bugger I can't say it otherwise the thread will be deleted

But you have to question what is likely to be the law to get an understanding of what is the actual law. No one needs lessons on not to murder, not to steal, not to damage something, etc.

If it is morally wrong, according to society's rules, then chances are there is a law against it.

I don't think anyone needs the law spelled out to them.
Ignorance is not going to be a defence for anyone.

The common sense advice is that if you are not sure about what you are saying is lawful, then look it up or seek advice.

Libel Law and MN

And I wasn't meaning to be patronizing, simply providing accuracy.

Some problem with being told you are incorrect and don't know as much as you think you do?

The term you are looking for is sequestered and they only do it for very high profile, heavy media cases.

MN is already working on changing the libel laws.

thumb - i think the closest anyone came to saying it was the OP.

The rest was general discussion about the area, crime rates etc.

hasn't it just been ruled that internet discussion comes under the heading of slander now, not libel? Because it is in the nature of a conversation, rather than published writing, I believe.

I do see what you're saying, Apple, but from what I read on that thread (and there may have been a lot more after I posted that I didn't see) no one was saying OUTRIGHT that "He did it, he obviously did it, it was him, no question". A lot of people were speculating and suggesting that the story was fishy and the facts as given just didn't add up. That's fair enough, IMO.

you've obviously got a bee in your bonnet about this, and having not read the thread in its entirety before it was pulled and not seeing the 'case for murder', i can't really ocmmet

email MNHQ

sorry, dunno what the original was about so don't know whether it's a criminal case or not.

Defamation law in this country is horribly loaded in favour of the rich and powerful inc. businesses.

but how can it be prejudicial if it is a reasonable thing to suppose in these circs? in the murder of a spouse, the other spouse is always the prime suspect. are you really suggesting that discussion of these cases should be banned?

remember all the speculation on here re Madelaine McCann and over the 'Foxy Knoxy' trial. there has also been a myriad of threads wrt to the late Michael Jackson's sexual preferences... should all those be pulled in case tehy ever prejudice a case?

i don't understand / know the law well enough to really comment but there has to be a balnce surely between freedom of speech/expression to express a personal opinion and defamation /slander/libel?

Defamation is a PITA to prove to be honest. If the person being sued said/wrote something that they believed to be true then there's no defamation. It's also a civil matter and is expensive to sue for.

Aside from the OP the rest of that thread went no further than an entire news article in SA went over it (and indeed the telegraph (or was it the Indie - it was late last night I read it ) mentioned almost all of the points which were mentioned in that thread - apart from the OP

I didn't see the whole of that thread

if people are saying i know x committed murder then that is a bit different to i thikn x might have beene involved

the internet is virtually unpoliceable. i think i made taht word up !

i suppose it is incumbent on the site owners/ administrators who hold the copyright for what is written to pull stuff that is defamatory/inflammatory

but telling people not to post speculation or supposition would just not work