to draw your attention to MN'ers being threatened with court for posting

[gordyslovesheep]

By Samaritan's Purse

I know I'm not the only one

who else have they decided to silence?

It's quite interesting that they dislike criticism so much

Samaritans purse are an anti-islamic organisation.

its like calling candyman in the mirror, i want to see what happens.

xpost. Moghedien. I have to take out all the reference numbers as they annoy me!

'They're threatening to take you to court for having an opinion? That's not very charitable is it.'

Very church-like though. Least they don't burn heretics any more.

Here's the fucking source

"Mr. Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham and head of a global missions agency, Samaritan's Purse, said last year that Islam was ''a very evil and wicked religion.''

NY Times FFS. www.nytimes.com/2003/05/08/us/top-evangelicals-critical-of-colleagues-over-islam.html

Hardly the Enquirer.

They suing the ny times or just silencing the lowly mners?

gosh yes at least I have escaped burning at the stake!

As the publisher of the website, MNHQ can be obliged by court order to pass on your details.
They are obviously trying to avoid that happening.

golly. mners have been raising awareness of SP's practices for years, and suggesting non-religious organisations that do shoeboxes as an alternative for those who object

Honestly, this is outrageous. Who is the person whose name is attached to the SP threat? Is he or she blissfully unaware that the unsavoury reputation of SP is widely recognised, and not the niche opinion of a couple of hothead Mumsnetters? I pointed it out to a parent governor of our village school last year, sent her links to media coverage etc, she brought it up officially and the decision was made to choose another charity.

Shit its swmnbn all over again!

Well, I've tweeted about this so hopefully they'll fuck off and let it die. Otherwise I'll keep tweeting and posting everywhere, and once I've set up some proxies no fucker will know who and where I am.

Isn't it you that has to prove what you said is true? I thought one was guilty until proven innocent when it comes to slander/defamation.

You've got me questioning myself now and I think you may be right. I should have paid more attention during my studies . Still I think it would be a pretty easy case after all the head guy has publicly said some pretty offensive stuff about Islam and I think they'd still have to link any financial loss to that specific comment.

depends on the region in which they sue i believe

I thought this thread was going to be about Queen Ethelburga's

what a diverse board of directors that is

Fraidy - I believe you're correct. In the UK the defendant of a defamation claim has to prove that what they allege is true. That's why celebrities love to sue media outlets in the UK instead of the States, where the defamation laws are reversed. There the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant's statements are untrue.

This is a bizarre complaint they have sent you OP. It sounds like blackmail or intimidation more than anything. "Remove your post or we'll publish your name and information" (if they even can do that). Have you contacted MN administrators to see what they say about this?

I thought it was going to be about QE too

Blimey I am shocked by this.
Is it the norm that MNHQ just forward on such legal threats? Was there any other comment from them in the email, OP?

Queen Ethelburga was responsible for the Christianisation of the North of England, another bloody evangelical.
It's OK OP, we are in for a soggy winter. Setting fire to dissidents may be harder than they planned.