I’m really cross that the teacher shown punching her horse …..

... it happens.

Distressing incidents cause emotion. We should be 'allowed' to discuss it, and them.

DAR You posited an argument in abstract terms about 'absolutism' suggesting that there were no 'absolutes'.

I countered that by highlighting an actual case. That of the torture / abuse of a young child by his parent who was found guilty of deliberately inflicting cigarette burns to his body. Which, I argued, could unequivocally be said to be wrong in absolute terms. Pointing out that there were indeed "acts" as you called them, which could be deemed wrong - always wrong, absolutely wrong.

Somehow this is deemed "gossip" and an "attack" on you. I've no idea why. It was a counter argument with an example to prove it.

You gave examples of how torture could be deemed to be the only alternative. Therefore it is debatable whether it's always wrong. I said that the torture of a child cannot be the subject of an ethical debate - for obvious reasons, torturing a child is simply absolutely wrong.

So, because I asked what you meant by your question, I am to be given what you call a "taste of you own medicine" GSM. Really?

It is still my opinion that the "gossip" on the internet should be treated as if it were published in print. This would mean that both the publisher and the writer could be sued if they were found guilty of publishing a false statement damaging to a person's reputation.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable post to make, one not in the least off-topic on a thread with the OP:

I’m really cross that the teacher shown punching her horse ... Has been found not guilty of animal cruelty! Just that really……

Throughout this thread, I have refused to give any opinion about what happened. I believe none of us have evidence proving or disproving anything. The court has tried and found the women concerned not guilty of the only charge brought against her. This also seems relevant to the OP.

I hope to see some trials for hate crimes in the future. No one should threaten people, their children or anyone concerned with them, with death or any other punishment they deem appropriate after a good gossip. However, I won't hold my breath. The internet seems to excuse a lot of behaviour not otherwise legally tolerated.

It is still my opinion that the "gossip" on the internet should be treated as if it were published in print. This would mean that both the publisher and the writer could be sued if they were found guilty of publishing a false statement damaging to a person's reputation.

I always thought that was true actually. Perhaps it isnt in that case?

I always act as if I am putting into print. Because I thought I was.

You are are correct fancythat.

Iam64

Hetty58, I’m rather pleased you’re having a laugh. I’m beginning to feel lying down in a darkened room listening to soothing classics for dogs is where I need to be 🙏🏽🐕

What about this compilation for anxious horses?
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DDDeahNbN4jw&ved=2ahUKEwjinfT-14mBAxXVVEEAHaUXDDAQwqsBegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw0lC6GI7IqygZvgsxqS1quz

That’s glorious Callistemon. I usually ask Alexa to play soothing classics for dogs as I leave the house. I’ll try the horse music as I go off to tai chi in ten mins

Germanshepherdsmum

You are are correct fancythat.

Would you say that anything said about the actual incident, videoed and admitted to, on this thread could be actionable?

Anything? Hardly.

If you mean any particular post, well I’m not going to trawl through them!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168630/Mumsnet-ordered-hand-identities-users.html (An article was also in the Times, but behind a paywall). There is also a thread on Mumsnet. I imagine that an online platform could challenge the court order to release the contact details, if they have deep enough pockets and see a loss of revenue if they go through with it.

The controversy over those running the site, rests on the differences in law already existing for the printed word. If you are a publisher, you can be equally liable. If you are a distributor, you will not be. Although this is clear in print, it is not so transparent online. For example, in the print world a publisher makes money from the content of a book or newspaper and controls that content (with lawyers). A distributor, e.g., a newsagent, makes money from selling ready-made goods and has no control over the content.

So, when you move this onto the Internet, everyone wants to be a distributor despite making money from the content. Publishers and writers are equally liable. Distributor liability is much more limited.

Hairs are split over how much the business restricts or edits user content. This is perverse. It means that the more an online forum, chat room, etc., decides to restrict or edit user content, to protect its members, readers or the general public, the higher the risk of prosecution and liability.

This doesn't just apply to GN/MN, although you should be aware that a platform may be at risk if it starts removing libelous comments and misses one/some. It is most likely to leave such comments. So you can't rely on the platform doing your thinking for you. The liability is therefore all yours. Perhaps, more importantly, this also applies to sites where children and grandchildren 'chat' with their friends.

Iam64

That’s glorious Callistemon. I usually ask Alexa to play soothing classics for dogs as I leave the house. I’ll try the horse music as I go off to tai chi in ten mins

I'm going to recommend it to a family member who has a rather skittish horse.
She is endlessly patient with it.

Callistemon21, thanks for that (10 hours of relaxing classical music) - ideal for any 'skittish' creature, I should think - naming no names!

Germanshepherdsmum

If you mean any particular post, well I’m not going to trawl through them!

No, no need to do that. You've presumably read the thread as it developed.

I just wondered, in view of remarks being made, if anything had struck you as being actionable.

Thanks for your response.

No, I didn’t notice anything actionable.

Maisie

According to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 10(2), defamation is one of the valid reasons for limiting a person’s freedom of expression.

A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another person: it "tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally". I imagine most people can decide that for themselves if their comment did that. Was that what some people were actually trying to do?

Of course, if you can prove such a statement to be true, it is not deformation. My argument their was no such legal proof where some of the statements are concerned.

If I was this woman I would just want to put this behind me but it does matter. Having an opinion is on thing; sharing a defamatory comment in print with the rest of the world's quite another.

Which comments do you consider defamatory DAR?

It's not my problem GSM. People need to decide for themselves and you need to leave it be unless you ard going to be helpful to them.

You talk about ‘some of the statements’, DAR - I assume you mean on this thread, but refuse to identify them saying it’s not your problem. I ask again, which statements do you consider defamatory?

And you say I ‘need to leave it be’ unless I am ‘going to be helpful to them’. Whatever does that mean? Who do you think is in need of help?

Germanshepherdsmum

Which comments do you consider defamatory DAR?

... yes, I'm puzzled as to which comments on here are defamatory - in legal terms.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Dickens

Germanshepherdsmum

Which comments do you consider defamatory DAR?

... yes, I'm puzzled as to which comments on here are defamatory - in legal terms.

Keep building the elephant traps Dickins. I did fall I to one because I didnt think you were that person. I have learned from that.

According to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 10(2), defamation is one of the valid reasons for limiting a person’s freedom of expression.

Like saying, never go outdoors in case you slip down.
Never go near a bus in case it runs you over etc etc etc

Dont open your mouth in case you defame.

No need for a response. Just musing. And a bit aghast at the ECHR control and overall cheek.

As if anyone is really interested in what is written on a grannies website - and who, exactly, could they sue? We're anonymous, after all.

Ridiculous but always amusing and I'm so glad we have free speech. It's good to know that mobile phones are filming people/events everywhere too.

fancythat

*According to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 10(2), defamation is one of the valid reasons for limiting a person’s freedom of expression.*

Like saying, never go outdoors in case you slip down.
Never go near a bus in case it runs you over etc etc etc

Dont open your mouth in case you defame.

No need for a response. Just musing. And a bit aghast at the ECHR control and overall cheek.

No at all fancythat. I think it says " engage brain before opening mouth in an attempt to destroy someone's life."

Hetty58

As if anyone is really interested in what is written on a grannies website - and who, exactly, could they sue? We're anonymous, after all.

Ridiculous but always amusing and I'm so glad we have free speech. It's good to know that mobile phones are filming people/events everywhere too.

Hetty

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168630/Mumsnet-ordered-hand-identities-users.html