Speech laws in the age of global communication

[perro]

Two separate things made me think of starting this thread...

The first was an instance here on Dogs when someone made reference to the fact that posters should not be discussing an ongoing criminal trial. To which Stoo answered that it didn't matter, the site is hosted in the USA.

The second is the case of two British racists who were prosecuted in the UK for things they posted on an American website. The catch is that in the USA their postings were protected by the 1rst amendment and no law had been broken. Did the activity happen in the UK (where the postings originated and were illegal) or the USA (where the postings actually exist and were legal)?

It's an odd subject where logic, law, and technology get it on in a freaky threesome.

[poor Emma West]

Two separate things made me think of starting this thread...

The first was an instance here on Dogs when someone made reference to the fact that posters should not be discussing an ongoing criminal trial. To which Stoo answered that it didn't matter, the site is hosted in the USA.

The second is the case of two British racists who were prosecuted in the UK for things they posted on an American website. The catch is that in the USA their postings were protected by the 1rst amendment and no law had been broken. Did the activity happen in the UK (where the postings originated and were illegal) or the USA (where the postings actually exist and were legal)?

It's an odd subject where philosophy, logic, and technology get it on in a freaky threesome.

yeah shame the armchair BNP warriors were convicted for hate speech. those scum think they can spew their racist bile, which has been against the law for decades here, without fear of prosecution

[perro]

Am I correct in that it is illegal for mass media outlets to discuss an ongoing criminal trial in the UK, and this ban extends to the Internet? SOL was always pulling threads for this.

Should Dogs posters be allowed to discuss trials. Or perhaps only UK posters should be prevented from doing so?

[Big Fat Frosty]

yes its a stupid law in the age of the internet
how the fuck are they gonna enforce it

but having said that they shud keep defendants anonymous till
a guilty verdict as imho it negates a fair trial

[perro]

how the fuck are they gonna enforce it

That is a VERY good question. Because there are ways they can.

[Big Fat Frosty]

how the fuck are they gonna enforce it

That is a VERY good question. Because there are ways they can.

how.. short of cutting off all access to the internet in other countries from uk computers
it cant be done
do you think china would obey
or ukraine do u think theyd extradite a blogger to uk to face charges
no way.....

[perro]

You are right, it wouldn't be easy (thankfully). And I'm no computer expert, so there's much I don't know about it.

But lets just take one instance. Let's pretend there's a sensational criminal trial in the UK. Brit posters on Dogs igonore the law and discuss it anyway. UK authorities find the postings using a search for keywords. They can't pull the posts because they sit on a US server and are 1rst amendment protected. However the UK authorities get the payment info from the server co. They trace this back to Stoo (who I assume lives in the UK) and prosecute him for allowing the posts.

I'm not saying such a scenario is likely, but it seems possible.

[LordRaven]

You are right, it wouldn't be easy (thankfully). And I'm no computer expert, so there's much I don't know about it.

But lets just take one instance. Let's pretend there's a sensational criminal trial in the UK. Brit posters on Dogs igonore the law and discuss it anyway. UK authorities find the postings using a search for keywords. They can't pull the posts because they sit on a US server and are 1rst amendment protected. However the UK authorities get the payment info from the server co. They trace this back to Stoo (who I assume lives in the UK) and prosecute him for allowing the posts.

I'm not saying such a scenario is likely, but it seems possible.

Our own media pay lip service to these laws and people are normally Guilty in the eyes of brainwashed public prior to entering court--and sometimes they are released prior to court because it is found that there is no case against them.

However,their lives are damaged.

e.g. This guy was portryaed as a wierdo loner and was effectively condemned by press----even tho he was totally innocent

Joanna Yeates' landlord arrested on suspicion of Bristol architect's ...
swns.com/joanna-yeates-landlord-arrested-on-suspicion-of-bristol-arc...
30 Dec 2010 – Police today arrested a 65-year-old man on suspicion of the murder of Bristol architect Joanna Yeates. Joanna Yeates' landlord arrested on ...

[perro]

Senor Cuervo is correct

But once in a while it can have the opposite effect. The NC Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape were probably helped by public outrage at the continued prosecution of defendents who seemed to more and more people to be innocent.

[trini]

I remember when I was on SOL I commented about a court case where I had to defend my wife with a firearm and they freaked out, even though the case had been about 7 years earlier.. How DARE you talk about a court case on SOL.

Stooo's correct, we have the right to talk about court cases on Dogs as the server is n the U.S.

[Guest]

Am I correct in that it is illegal for mass media outlets to discuss an ongoing criminal trial in the UK, and this ban extends to the Internet? SOL was always pulling threads for this.

Should Dogs posters be allowed to discuss trials. Or perhaps only UK posters should be prevented from doing so?

Yes it can and has previously prejudiced trials. The Contempt of Court Act 1981.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49

[Guest]

You are right, it wouldn't be easy (thankfully). And I'm no computer expert, so there's much I don't know about it.

But lets just take one instance. Let's pretend there's a sensational criminal trial in the UK. Brit posters on Dogs igonore the law and discuss it anyway. UK authorities find the postings using a search for keywords. They can't pull the posts because they sit on a US server and are 1rst amendment protected. However the UK authorities get the payment info from the server co. They trace this back to Stoo (who I assume lives in the UK) and prosecute him for allowing the posts.

I'm not saying such a scenario is likely, but it seems possible.

Our own media pay lip service to these laws and people are normally Guilty in the eyes of brainwashed public prior to entering court--and sometimes they are released prior to court because it is found that there is no case against them.

However,their lives are damaged.

e.g. This guy was portryaed as a wierdo loner and was effectively condemned by press----even tho he was totally innocent

Joanna Yeates' landlord arrested on suspicion of Bristol architect's ...
swns.com/joanna-yeates-landlord-arrested-on-suspicion-of-bristol-arc...
30 Dec 2010 – Police today arrested a 65-year-old man on suspicion of the murder of Bristol architect Joanna Yeates. Joanna Yeates' landlord arrested on ...

Yes the tabloid scum had a field day with CJ but they coughed up big time in the end. Cunts. Still intelligent people ignore the bollocks in the tabloids and only believe two things they print, price and date.

[KeithTas]

yes its a stupid law in the age of the internet
how the fuck are they gonna enforce it

but having said that they shud keep defendants anonymous till
a guilty verdict as imho it negates a fair trial

A Super Injuction is the way to go. What a fucking nonsense that is, what gives someone the right to try to shut someone up in another country. We need to find a way to stop all this fairness bollocks and to stop criminals using the justice system and the HRA to get off scot free. We could hang them all and just pay out a bit of bunce to any innocent victims. That way at least we are sure the criminals get what they deserve. Or is this being a little bit harsh.

[Guest]

yes its a stupid law in the age of the internet
how the fuck are they gonna enforce it

but having said that they shud keep defendants anonymous till
a guilty verdict as imho it negates a fair trial

A Super Injuction is the way to go. What a fucking nonsense that is, what gives someone the right to try to shut someone up in another country. We need to find a way to stop all this fairness bollocks and to stop criminals using the justice system and the HRA to get off scot free. We could hang them all and just pay out a bit of bunce to any innocent victims. That way at least we are sure the criminals get what they deserve. Or is this being a little bit harsh.

Not another cunt who thinks people get off stuff because of the HRA.

Care to show one single case where the HRA was the ONLY reason for getting off.