The ruling today in Flintshire about the blogger prosecuted under the Telecommunications Act should possibly make us all careful about we write and how it is interpreted.
According to the story,
"He claimed he had not meant to be offensive, had used the blog "to let off steam", but had not intended any harm. He apologised if it was perceived as a threat, offered to remove the offending words, and to write a letter of apology. Asked if he realised how the officer and his wife would have felt when they read his comments, he said: "I can now. I am sorry. But their interpretation is different to what I intended. Flintshire magistrates, sitting at Mold, said the blog was articulate, detailed, specific and critical of the police and the CPS".
It is a groundbreaking ruling, given some of the things that were said on blogs such as Arsembly during the last Assembly elections. It is little wonder that an increasing number of bloggers are resorting to comment moderation.
More recently, I was accused of being a racist by an active commentator on Welsh blogs for raising the issue of immigration. Luckily for him, I was in a festive mood at the time and asked for a withdrawal of the comments.
As my exceptionally litigious lawyer told me later, the case of libel was so clear cut that it would have been a very expensive mistake for him and embarrassing for the Party he represents if he had not done so.
This is not an isolated incident.
As Sanddef points out, some of the comments that have been flying around the maes-e discussion board probably fall in the same category. If lawyers want to take any of these issues further, they would certainly have a strong case for doing so, especially given the limited nature of the pseudonyms on the site (especially as most people know who they are!)
Personally, I believe blogs should be open discussion areas and I am loathe to use comment moderation. It should be up to those commenting to moderate themselves and for us bloggers to make sure that we deal with any offensive comments quickly.
p.s. Remind me to tell you about the electronic hassle I received from a senior figure within a prominent North Wales institution about my academic status during my election campaign, but that is a story for another day....
According to the story,
"He claimed he had not meant to be offensive, had used the blog "to let off steam", but had not intended any harm. He apologised if it was perceived as a threat, offered to remove the offending words, and to write a letter of apology. Asked if he realised how the officer and his wife would have felt when they read his comments, he said: "I can now. I am sorry. But their interpretation is different to what I intended. Flintshire magistrates, sitting at Mold, said the blog was articulate, detailed, specific and critical of the police and the CPS".
It is a groundbreaking ruling, given some of the things that were said on blogs such as Arsembly during the last Assembly elections. It is little wonder that an increasing number of bloggers are resorting to comment moderation.
More recently, I was accused of being a racist by an active commentator on Welsh blogs for raising the issue of immigration. Luckily for him, I was in a festive mood at the time and asked for a withdrawal of the comments.
As my exceptionally litigious lawyer told me later, the case of libel was so clear cut that it would have been a very expensive mistake for him and embarrassing for the Party he represents if he had not done so.
This is not an isolated incident.
As Sanddef points out, some of the comments that have been flying around the maes-e discussion board probably fall in the same category. If lawyers want to take any of these issues further, they would certainly have a strong case for doing so, especially given the limited nature of the pseudonyms on the site (especially as most people know who they are!)
Personally, I believe blogs should be open discussion areas and I am loathe to use comment moderation. It should be up to those commenting to moderate themselves and for us bloggers to make sure that we deal with any offensive comments quickly.
p.s. Remind me to tell you about the electronic hassle I received from a senior figure within a prominent North Wales institution about my academic status during my election campaign, but that is a story for another day....
Comments
As to the use of rude language by a member of he public without menacing language in the context of the Welsh Assembly - e.g., using "ass" in a word referring to the Assembly is not subject to meaningful court sanction - meaning, it can be easily overturned on appeal. But use of menacing language with specificity has always been subject to court sanction - so again, I don't see how this ruling that you refer to is 'groundbreaking'.
I have come across convictions in Egypt and China (four years for immoral or critical comments) for use of the internet but not here in the UK.
As a result, some bloggers and commentators may temper their comments in future either in terms of offensive or menacing behaviour or, as the examples I use, in terms of libelling individuals.
I am not mistaking legal concepts at all - having had to pursue libel claims I know the definition by now!
Indeed, it is interesting that some individuals on the maes-e website have been threatening legal action against some claims made by contributors. Whether this falls under abusive behavior, libel or just breaks election rules is an issue which they will, no doubt, take up with lawyers. Perhaps, they should call you!!!
Therefore, we could argue about the term 'groundbreaking' but I certainly see this as an important case which will affect the UK and Welsh blogosphere and there may well be more to come.
Dylan, you are expert in things entrepreneurial, but you are not a professional lawyer. Have you got an LLB? Did you sit for the Bar? Are you licensed to practice law? Stick to what you know. You are making silly statements here.
How can a decision be “groundbreaking” when it “came down” from a Magistrates Court – get real please!
You are, at best, an armchair lawyer, you haven’t studied the law in detail. I doubt if you have ever drafted a brief, an appeal, attended a Court of Law as a lawyer representing a client. Stop digging yourself into a hole Dylan! You are a very good Professor in your area, but you are no lawyer.
You must have heard the saying that the man who argues his own case has a fool for a lawyer. Ask Heather Mills that one.
Given what passes for political coverage in the mainstream media is would be a shame that we could loose this online forum for additional analysis and debate, its a wonder that any of us still care about and vote in elections.
This conviction will change the behaviour of certain bloggers in the UK and you don't need to have a law degree to work that one out.
More people will be anonymous, there may well be more legal cases and freedom of speech, as has happened with the civil service blogging, will be curtailed.
However, please break one of your rules and start moderating this blog. Anything to stop the insufferable Dr Wood from letting us know how qualified, clever and in demand he is (and yet he seems to have plenty of time on his hands to blog).
I categorically did not say or imply that this particular case in Flintshire was a libel issue.
If you read the blog again you will see that is the case.
However, with regard to OTHER potential cases which I refer to, they could be libelous, malicious or even a break of election law.
It will then be up to the police (or the CPS) whether this is a criminal case and the individual will be prosecuted. Alternatively, depending on the comments, a civil case for libel could be pursued through the courts.
I hope that clarifies the matter once and for all.
Ironically, of course, the comments from the USA demonstrates how blog entries can be easily misinterpreted.
But you only have to look at the BBC to see that websites that use threatening language are being used as evidence to support terror cases. For example, “Three al-Qaeda-linked men have admitted inciting terrorist attacks against non-Muslims on websites and in e-mails.” See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6268934.stm
Using a criminal case to support your thesis that libel on blogs would be reduced is a nonsensical legal argument. The two things are separate in law. One is criminal, the other civil, as Ordo noted, the case you refer to was "about threats or insinuated threats".
So tell you what, Christopher, as you are clearly unable to see the wood for the trees over this matter, and are making an argument for the sake of an argument (or perhaps you have nothing better to do at 3am in the morning in Virginia) let us just agree that:
- I have no right whatsoever to have my own definition of 'groundbreaking' and that it must be used only in reference to your legal point of view;
- that I am not allowed to discuss both criminal and libel cases in the same blog as that insults the sensibilities of your legal intellect;
- that your opinion is the only one that matters.
Of course, the quid pro quo (that is Latin by the way) is that you spare us your comments on the Welsh economy and UK politics of which you have clearly no experience or expertise.
Thanks for flagging this up
I think it is circumspect that we all think about what is said sometimes and how liable we are.
I am amazed at what Guido gets away with.
Best thing with muppets is to ignore them then they cannot respond, cut them off at the pass.
is this the same very tedious man who has ruined Glyn's Blog for me ?