tell people the law.. suggestion

[Appletrees]

Can't you put up a very clear notice/tab saying this is basically the law as regards defamation, prejudice etc. If there are people who think its ok to say "I think Mr x conspired to murder Mrs x" you really need it.

Just because there's a 'tab/notice' doesn't mean people will read it.

And what happened for people to be allowed to have opinions.

The law on defamation happened.

if it's an opinion, surely that's ok? if you say it's your opinion, and allegedly and all that jazz?

or it would be illegal to speculate on anything in current affairs.

It is not defamatory to say you thikn something, it is to state it as a fact , no?

The last thread was almost putting together a case. I think we need basic guidelines about what can be said.

Don't forget, if someone is charged and someone says something really prejudicial to a potential court case that could mean someone getting off or a mistrial. Sow basic legal advice is needed. I'm not up on it but I know you can't go Roy.d putting togetheracase like that.

Phone phone. Phone

well, if you think that the thread could possibly prejudice a fair trial, you should report to MNHQ with your concerns

I di.. it was deleted.. I don't know, mn is so high profile, if I was that guy I could sue. I could, basically, sue.

It happened before didn't it? Gina Ford... Rockets...

that was slightly different scenario

i imagine there are discussions all over the internet about this high profile case you are discussing

Defamation is defamation... more outlets just means a bigger payout.

Contempt of court is serious and can lead to criminal proceedings against those committing it, as well as the abandonment of trials.

But you can't stop people talking about high profile cases. The internet has brought what used to be pub conversations to a wider arena. The state can do its best to make sure the formal media don't prejudice trials (although it has happened) but I'm not sure how it can stop people talking online. Even if they could, you'd have to employ an army of people to monitor Facebook and Twitter and every chat room. Even a notice at the top of a thread won't necessarily be read, understood and acted on by all posters.

You can't accuse people of murder Willy nilly to thousands of people. I'm amazed this isn't more widely understood.

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

It's not contempt, its defamation or prejudicial, or could be, I suppose I mean.

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

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.

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?

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.

Oh please this is not about politics. No its not about believing it to be true. Truth is a defence, as is fair comment. Setting up a case for murder because you believe q guy is a killer is with the excuse that someone else did it is not a defence at all. And justifying libelous gossip on the grounds that the recipients can't do anything about it is plain nasty.

By someone else did it, I mean someone else published it

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

Not like you to be patronizing lulu.

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.

Imo isn't enough I don't think

Defamation is slander and libel.. covers both

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

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