I've only had time to read the Evan Harris linkie (which was very interesting, thanks!). I'm bit disturbed to discover that two of the things that look most urgent to me (scientific journals and protecting web hosts) aren't in the Bill. But don't agree with Evan that lone bloggers should have lower standards than national newspapers here. All that will happen is lone bloggers will publish something then the newspapers will publish it as "David Cameron a paedophile, says lone blogger" - which doesn't seem like where we want to be to me.
I haven't read the draft bill yet but if there isn't that protection for bloggers then wouldn't you (or I) now already be subject to a potential suit for your Cameron statement, even though you were using it as an example? Though the blogosphere reporting focuses on semi-professional or professional blogs a lot, the majority are of friends communicating with friends and using conversational language
( ... )
I do have some sympathy with the gist of what you're saying but on the detail I'm not so sure. For example, my Cameron statement was put in quotes and clearly not intended as a statement of fact - I don't think it would put me in any danger under current libel laws never mind weaker ones envisaged in future. I think I have a responsibility not to make apparently factual claims e.g. about David Cameron unless I can back them up with reasonably reliable evidence
( ... )
my Cameron statement was put in quotes and clearly not intended as a statement of fact Granted. I'm am concerned about the balance between clarity of the law (vital) and overinclusion because fine-tuning pre-existing concepts of law to new communication methods is too challenging
( ... )
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment