Freedom of Speech on the Internet

[Alibaldi]

Amnesty International takes up the cause started by others
Story on the BBC

don't know why but i read that as 'i've met a lot of mumsnetters in prison'

Curiouser and curiouser!

Hi Justine,

In "the interests of fair play" I look forward to actually hearing your suggetions on what changes should be and not just complaining about the current situation.

I agree that the law in this and many other regards isn't perfect.
I just want to hear/read what you actually suggest.

Please, please, please disprove my comments here

Hi FakeIDpoint,
I will respond (again) when I've got a minute - right now I've some publicity to do (actually, I've got to pick the kids up )

fakeid - libel laws/schmibel laws. Is that all you talk about?

Come and advise me about shampoo

This thread helps to confirm my feelings that some people (quite a few, not any one person in particular) are posting on mumsnet with set agendas to prevoke specific reactions and keep distastful discussions active.

I have read certain threads recently where that just shines through to me (even though I do not have any legal or journalistic background).

It goes beyond disucssion IMO to something much more manipulative. The people who post in this way IMO are doing more than imparting information or adding a personal veiwpoint to a discussion.

S0 (without knowing all the history behind this) I broadly agree with you dino.

Otherwise we have a lot of people running around shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre...

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8523103.stm

Is this story evidence of why:

a) it's good that EU and UK law has it that it's illegal to disseminate damaging +/or hurtfull information about an individual that you can't factually back up.

b) the legal system (not the law) should change so that not only wealthy people / organsations are in a position to defend themselves when others attack them (where these attacks aren't based on fact).

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8523103.stm

Is this story evidence of why:

a) it's good that EU and UK law has it that it's illegal to disseminate damaging +/or hurtfull information about an individual that you can't factually back up.

b) the legal system (not the law) should change so that not only wealthy people / organsations are in a position to defend themselves when others attack them (where these attacks aren't based on fact).

(Sorry, re-posted with [[ buts to make the link to the BBC news article a link)

Agree with Tigermoth completely.

The social work/removing children threads are a v. good example of the entrenched views/hidden agendas/personalised disputes problem.

That's why, apart from fairly anodyne requests for information and assistance, I actually avoid posting on topics relating to my own professional area. Not fair unless I say how I know about it but I'm not interested in losing the anonymity that allows me to post freely.

On libel reform, the problem is that there isn't a debate, because the media generally tends only to report the media consensus view that there needs to be reform in a certain direction. There is little or no coverage of any informed contrary view.

Nothing to disagree with on the article OP has linked to- it is disgraceful people are criminalised for non-violent political dissent.