Support Leveson - sign this

[Celestine]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, said at the enquiry that there is no need for legislation, that all we need is for existing legislation to be enforced.

Ironically Hislop described exactly what Leveson proposes.

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I must admit, having only just caught up with this, that I'm astonished that anyone could advocate criminalising libel laws as a sane alternative to implementing Leveson's report and is perhaps a teabag short of a brew!

It was suggested earlier that adopting Leveson would lead the UK down a slippery slope to join the likes of, stalin, mao tse tung & yugoslavia/bosnia.

Countries who currently have criminal libel laws include Russia, China and Bosnia, not to mention other beacons of democracy & free speech such as Belarus, Azerbaijan and Zimbabwe.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I must admit, having only just caught up with this, that I'm astonished that anyone could advocate criminalising libel laws as a sane alternative to implementing Leveson's report and is perhaps a teabag short of a brew!

Sorry, but having twice been personally accused of libel this year, I find that suggestion quite alarming.

The Leveson report actually improves the landscape for forums such as ours, but it quite rightly suggests underpinning the current toothless press regulation with some teeth.

And stating that 'even Cameron agrees with me' is not necessarily a positive!

Your misunderstanding what am suggesting. Am not suggesting all forms of libel be criminalized, only the most serious forms of libel that can have severe type of damaging effect on people life's and reputations compared to that of the more general forms of libel, which we see everyday! Calling someone a rapist is much more severe then saying some one had an affair, when they did not! Accusing someone or murder is more severe then accusing them of lying or reporting false non criminal factual information about someone (e.g. rumors or misguided opinions stated as fact)! Basically accusing people of the most serious forms of criminal acts when they have not committed such acts should be criminalized libel, just like falsely crying rape is punishable by custodial sentence (Should the extremist that call or boys and girls baby killers (as a matter of fact) as they do their home coming parades on the street, be allowed to get away with such gross acts of libel/slander?). Where as opinions, or accusations against companies, that are not accusations of serious criminal acts, should not be criminalized therefore the libel threats you received Cel, would still be civil cases not criminal. Sure people should be fined significantly and have it appear on their criminal record, rather then be jailed, but jail should be an option for repeat offenders or where serious consequences occurred as a result of their libel, such as suicide, the victim (of victims family) being attacked etc, which has been known to happen!

How does levesons report and suggestions benefit the forum exactly? If anything, the new legislation could pose a future threat to it, as no doubt in the future, should such legislation become law, companies against consumer forums will push for legislation of consumer forums or try and use the press legislation to their benefit, after all you are a publisher! Just like independent reporters using blogs and word press are! In fact we are all publishers when we post on forums, so its only a question of time, when any new legislation is used by the companies, that we fight against, against consumer forums! Such as forcing us to be regulated by the same regulator, maybe! Truth is we won't know till it actually happens, and no one can say it won't happen as it easily could!

Am i a teabag short of a brew (seriously wasn't expecting innuendo's from you Cel - aren't such comments also a form of libel if it had been stated as a fact?), or am i just being cautious, and suggesting a valid alternative, which would actually have prevented the phone hacking and the libelous statements against Joanne Yates landlord, not to mention many other victims of libel from being victims of libel in the first place!

All the legislation that is being supported here does, is deal with claims made by victims via the new regulator, which can already be done via the courts anyway, and can be achieved without legislation, once the publishers adopt leveson proposals. Which by the way according to latest reports they have agreed to all of levesons suggestions exempt the underpinning of them by legislation - So kind of makes the need for legislation irrelevant?

It wasn't that long ago when defamation was criminal! So all i was suggesting was that we have similar laws, but with a much clearer definition of what acts or forms of libel could be treated as criminal and what the punishments would be if guilty. or perhaps, legislation providing libel victims who claim via the courts higher compensation awards and where the perpetrator be ordered to make a public apology of some form, so that the victims name is cleared in the eyes of the public!

Whether you agree of not is your prerogative Cel, but please refrain from making innuendo's just because you don't agree with my opinion of suggestions, as they don't do you any justice! We already had one person act childishly just because they couldn't accept both me and militant along with others that may or may not have posted here, do not agree with the need for this legislation. I didn't intend to have this debate, i merely posted my opinion off not supporting this legislation which was then questioned and later disrespected by claims i was "out of the loop", my reasoning were "dreampt up" or based on "erroneous facts", when in fact my opinion was based on my personal opinionated belief against any form of press regulation. If people are going to make posts supporting something and asking others to support it, then they should understand and respect that not everyone will share their belief or opinions, and they should respect other peoples own opinions and beliefs if they are asking people to support theirs! Militant was also against supporting this, only to be childishly disrespected in post 77 - Why? Because like mine, militants opinion went against the opinion of the person here asking for others to support there belief/opinion or cause! it seems anyone with a different opinion is castrated or disrespected for having their own different opinion. I though we were all adults, that respected each others opinions here on LB, whether we shared those opinions or not, but its beginning to look like i was wrong!

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

It was suggested earlier that adopting Leveson would lead the UK down a slippery slope to join the likes of, stalin, mao tse tung & yugoslavia/bosnia.

Countries who currently have criminal libel laws include Russia, China and Bosnia, not to mention other beacons of democracy & free speech such as Belarus, Azerbaijan and Zimbabwe.

Many states in the USA also have criminal defamation laws too, so your point is moot! That's seventeen states and two territory's to be exact!

Also the whole reason criminal defamation laws in the UK was in hope such countries would follow, but it failed to stop such countries from having their own!

Out of interest perhaps we should campaign for similar legislation to this US law - Section 230 Communications Decency Act of 1996 Then Forum owners would be protected from libel claims

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

The Leveson report actually improves the landscape for forums such as ours

It does as currently the public interest defence is only based on a general principle that publishing material that was confidential or was obtained by means that were other than legitimate can be published if it is genuinely in the public interest and although the DPP recently published guidance on it as a result of the Leveson inquiry it isn't actually written into law in any definitive way.

The legistation that Leveson proposes would define and enshrine the public interest defence in law and would be universal in it's application (ie not just the press but all publication) and would offer more secure protection to sites like us in circumstances such as our dispute with Schillings/RLP.

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Had the attached letter from my (Tory) MP in answer to asking her to support Leveson in full. My response below.



Thank you for your response.

I do have one question if I may.

Consider this sentence from your letter:
‘’Any legislation might mean we find it harder to safeguard the freedom of the press in the future’’.

Then consider this sentence from the Leveson report:
‘’What would the legislation achieve? Three things. First, it would enshrine, for the first time, a legal duty on the Government to protect the freedom of the press’’

Now, using your skill and judgment, would the proposed legislation make it easier or harder to safeguard the freedom of the press?