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

RVK1CR

rafichagran

Me too, look at the outrage with Zouma for kicking his cat, he was found guilty and punished and so he should have been, he was vilified and people would not let it go.
A posh woman kicks and slaps a horse, as shown on the news, and is found not guilty. The double standards disgust me.

Totally agree with you, someone should kick and slap her and I hope some brave soul does

So someone reads this and thinks hate crime - of which threats and incitement to other human beings are a part, RVK1CR - should be stopped and, just as you have that asked others to punish Sarah Moulds, who committed no crime, they now ask others to physically bring you to account for possibly breaking the law.

And so it goes on and on; hate on hate. When will you decide this online hate isn't worth it RVK1CR? When someone finally ends up dead?

RVKICR. - vigilantes do no good.

rafichagran

Me too, look at the outrage with Zouma for kicking his cat, he was found guilty and punished and so he should have been, he was vilified and people would not let it go.
A posh woman kicks and slaps a horse, as shown on the news, and is found not guilty. The double standards disgust me.

Totally agree with you, someone should kick and slap her and I hope some brave soul does

Thanks, GSM. I think that knowledge (03-Sep-23 18:57:17) brings this part of the discussion full circle.

Yes, hosts can be held responsible. However, we know from past research that companies will be held less responsible the less they moderate any possibly litigious comments. They would then pay less for any libel. This would lower their on-costs for legal insurance, etc.

We can't blame a business for acting in this way. It is the very nature of a well-run business. So we come back to the perversity of the law governing who, online, is a publisher and who a distributor.

They can be held responsible, as within common law they are ‘publishing’ offending comments- which is why GN have been quick to remove them once they have been reported.

GSM, your comment at 17:18:29 is usefully illuminating, thank you.

Regarding your 17:05:41 post, I agree no change may be needed. Sadly, I think we need the online publishers to be legally responsible for the legality of the text, which would mean redefining online publishing, If you are making profit from people's words, you should have some legal responsibility for them. Without that I think there will be very little control over misinformation, etc. Perhaps that thought is more political (law making) than legal?

It is, if you like, actually just the same as speaking the relevant words in the presence of other people. The words disappear the moment they are spoken but the testimony of witnesses remains.

Actually no change needed. A defamatory or hate crime post on the internet is as actionable as one written on paper. People think they can get away with such posts by deleting them but they may have been captured by screenshot already and a forensic examiner can recover the contents of a hard drive.

Hetty, what is being suggested is not a change, it is a change back so that what covers print also covers the internet.

Gillycats

She got away with it because the jury were directed by the judge to clear her. No doubt both her and the judge move in similar circles. If that had been some kids on a council estate the outcome would have been different. What she did was disgusting and she deserved everything she got.

Anyone who makes death threats against a person - whoever they are - deserves the full force of the law brought down on their heads. We've evolved from mob-rule and lynching.

And, even if she and the judge move in the same circles, to imply that he us corrupt without clear evidence / proof is defamatory.

Also, people from the same strata of society can hold widely differing views, about lots of things.

I don’t understand what you mean by context Hetty, but people do have to think before speaking or writing - not only defamation but race and hate crimes have to be considered. Nobody is free to say what they want regardless of consequences and in some ways that’s not such a bad thing,

Germanshepherdsmum, no it's not a 'real' problem in this context. The problem begins when people might wonder if it's alright to say what they think - in case somebody, somewhere sues them. There's too many cautionary comments about what we should or shouldn't say.

Nobody would have been prosecuted, Hetty, because defamation is a civil wrong, not criminal. How do you know that nobody was sued? Civil cases are frequently settled out of court.

When a post has been removed written evidence will remain in the form of a screenshot taken by the complainant and it remains on the computer’s hard drive. Linguistic tendencies can identify the author.

You make light of this, but it is a very real problem. If I were defamed I would take it very literally.

DaisyAnneReturns, I'm back (after two more pages) and read your reply. I found it amusing - again. The court ordered MN to reveal the identities, but, of course, nobody was prosecuted. Posts and comments can be removed, users banned from the site - but there's simply no evidence to identify an individual writer. When written evidence is removed, there's no case anyway.

Ok, so a mobile or IP address can be tracked. Still, a person could leave a mobile or laptop unattended for a few minutes. How on Earth could anyone prove who wrote a comment?

It's obvious, there's the law - and then, there's common sense - with a little overlap at times, hence the saying: 'The law is an ass'. Some folk just take things too literally, don't they?

I think we are in agreement here DAR. Much false information appears on the internet. Conspiracy theories abound. Some content can be defamatory, some such as that posted by the anti-vax brigade can be dangerous. We are fortunate not to experience much of this on GN, which is the only SM site I use. Those who post defamatory words can, if identifiable, and should be answerable for their actions, as should the owner of the forum if they fail to remove the content with all due speed after being notified of its existence. GN has been quick to remove potentially defamatory posts and those which speculate on a matter which is sub judice.

Gillycats - our judiciary is independent. Remember all those ‘leftie lawyers’ people complain about. The best amongst lawyers become judges. The remain politically independent.

It's interesting to know further details about the voting rules. The more liberal part of me worries about saying people should not post for any reason. However, I think the publisher - GN, in this case - should be obliged to edit such accusations or misrepresentations.

At the moment, their hands are tied. They can't do this to false statements, as you outlined, or some of the comments about Sarah Moulds, which have no factual support.

We are limited in life about how and where we voice our opinions. I can't see why this shouldn't apply on the internet, but others may be able to see gaps in this thinking.

I wonder where two posters have obtained the misinformation which they have spread here regarding the jury’s deliberations and the judge’s actions. Neither will clarify their posts. Whatever the origins of this misinformation, somebody somewhere has concocted stories and spread them. We have had on this thread one allegation that 11 members of the jury wished to convict Moulds, one didn’t, and the judge sent them back to reach a unanimous verdict, which amazingly became that of the one dissenter. Nobody but the jury members could possess that information, which in this country they are forbidden to disclose. And now an allegation that the judge directed the jury not to convict, his supposed reason being that he and Moulds moved in the same circles. It is deeply concerning that we have posters publishing these complete falsehoods here, and that they are unwilling to name their sources when asked .

Gillycats

She got away with it because the jury were directed by the judge to clear her. No doubt both her and the judge move in similar circles. If that had been some kids on a council estate the outcome would have been different. What she did was disgusting and she deserved everything she got.

I go back to what I said originally. I don't think you should be able to put in print on the internet anything you could not put in print in writing terrestrially.

This post falls a bit more in-between than some of the vitriol against Sarah Moulds. I can imagine the Mail printing it as it continues their culture wars, but even they might be warned off by the lawyers as it specifically points to, abd accuses the judge.

Obviously this person cannot be held to account for undermining our democracy, of which the judiciary is a pillar but such a comment speaks loudly about the level of our education.

Brilliant. Thank you GSM.

You know that my question was entirely relevant DAR as it was posed in response to a comment about prejudice which you posted. In context, it was a very specific question, not a general question. You have chosen not to answer the question, as usual. My choice is not to engage further with you. I have better things to do.

Gillycats, it really is nonsense to claim some kind of class system meant this woman received more lenient treatment than ‘kids on a council estate’ would have.

Please provide proof of that Gillycats.

She got away with it because the jury were directed by the judge to clear her. No doubt both her and the judge move in similar circles. If that had been some kids on a council estate the outcome would have been different. What she did was disgusting and she deserved everything she got.

Oreo

It reads like word games to me too. It isn’t clever btw.

Germanshepherdsmum has it right in my view about the RSPCA.
What happened to the horse was wrong but not a strong enough case for court.

I still don't know what you mean by "word games". I write as I speak, just as I presume the rest if you do. Are you now criticising the way I speak, my general communication skills?

This really is getting to be a very personal attack.