Freedom of speech

Ah, but which has been lies?
[note I am very wary of asking you or anyone now in case you repeat stuff that actually isnt a lie at all].
Personally I have become super confused about which has been found out to be lies.
If I am right, him saying about crowd sizes wasnt even lies because they were given wrong stats by some organisation or other?

So for me, I havent a clue anymore whether there have been any actual lies at all or not.

ok, I will do this. Will you actully put anything down here that is a definite lie by trump?
Probably not?

A reason to be pleased we live in the UK, and not the US.

money.cnn.com/2017/02/07/media/murder-rate-donald-trump-media-conspiracy-theories/index.html

Trump can lie as much as he likes and nothing can be done about it. Anyone who disagrees, it's fake news.
No president should be able to get away with such obvious lies.

But then, GracesGran, another article in Conservativehome says that the outburst was uncharacteristic of him. Does that mean being rude wasn't characteristic for him? You wouldn't think so for all the comments.

I saw your post above Fitzy and I can see that is your opinion.

edition.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/kellyanne-conway-jake-tapper-interview-cnntv/index.html

Even the Whitehouse can't agree on what is fake news. Kellyanne Conway has realised they need CNN.

Graces - he may be very good at his job as speaker, but he got it very wrong this time.

An interesting view of Speaker Burcow. It is noticeable that the true Parliamentarians differ in opinion from the Government placemen.

Profile: John Bercow, one of the best Speakers of modern times, but also by far the rudest

If a link is connecting you to a site that is obviously left wing/right wing propaganda it is usually easy to check it's content for accuracy. Not all the time I admit.

The best thing to do is ask yourself why a link ,a photo has been put up. If it is obviously making a snide, crude, offensive comment and targeting a person the poster obviously dislikes then be cautious because most respectable sites are careful not to use 'content' that clearly would/could be libellous, or indeed of a salacious nature.

If a link directs you to nothing more than an individual blogger making an individual comment then it is usually pretty easy to question it's content.

If a link, photo is connected to an organisation which is well known, then you are probably OK but I would want to see it in/on more than one site to be honest.

I think I am right in saying, that althought we think we are just "chatting" we are in fact publishing?

Gransnet words
Please note that Gransnet has non-exclusive copyright in all submissions to Gransnet, and reserves the right to edit and re-publish these in print form.

Note the word re-publish.

LaraGransnet and anyone else can correct me if I am wrong on that!

Sorry "..I don't think that WOULD protect them..."!

Jen - MPs can say what they like about anyone in Parliament without fear of a defamation action. But I don't think that wouldn't protect them from other laws e.g. Laws around incitement unto racial hatred. Whitewave - we don't all get the same protections from liable actions that are available to the press. But their protection is not absolute. As I've said they are often successfully sued.

I think we are all held responsible for what we say. If my memory is correct, there have been cases where people have re-tweeted messages of others on Twitter and been sued for very large sums.

So what happens pogs if you put something on in good faith

As I said, helf way down the link was probably the important bit

Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.

I am not sure good faith is any defence.

There was a professor of something on a couple of days ago and he was saying that it is getting more and more difficult for people to know what is true or false. So I guess the rules are going to have to change to keep up with the times.

WW

I've no idea but I do know I have challenged a few links and mentioned Fake News on other threads.

For example take the story of The Pope backing Trump, I am pretty sure I remember that on a GN thread on Trump. Fake News.

I was watching a programme on Fake News and it was amazing the stories and photos they were showing which I had heard and seen but were in fact 'faked' , 'photo shopped'. It showed how easy it was to fake what somebody was saying! Very scary stuff and best avoided.

Presumably they can't tell blatant untruths about him and get away with it.

Bercow and impartiality - as I said before, the point is he is meant to speak for parliament, not just himself. That's his constitutional duty. He clearly knew there would be many MPs who wouldn't support what he said. He should have kept quiet unless specifically asked to invite Trump, and then taken the view of MPs.

Can MPs say what they like about Trump in parliament and not be sued, Fitzy?

fitz say one of us repeated something we read in the Mail (as is recently the case) which is later found to be untrue?

Whitewave, not sure what your point is about lies in newspapers. They can be sued for liable and have been, on many occasions. But in the absence of very deliberate and knowing lies about specific people, there are various defences available to the media. E.g. I think most things printed "in furtherance of a trade dispute" are protected from suit, and any report on things said in parliament.

POGS absolutely!

Yes the Speaker is supposed to be impartial and unbiased as to party political matters within the house of commons. That does not mean he/she has to be impartial about the world in general, outside the bubble of the dealings UK members of parliament within Westminster

Jess its very clear that the attitude to Trump has become to a substantial degree a party political issue, with the left having a fanatical hysterical hatred of him, and the Consrvatives taking a pragmatic view.

Bercow should go.

So what happens pogs if you put something on in good faith?

No JessM there is no muddled thinking here about it, and in fact Bercow has apologised for his ...shall we say, impartiality.He may still stand by his sentiments but knows that he did the wrong thing.

Simple, don't put a link up to certain sites and check your facts.

Some links put up on GN are nothing more than left/right wing propaganda , others are no more informative than a fat bloke sitting in a chair eating pizza sounding off.

Read a link but check what lies behind it for yourself and don't be gullable just because it is on GN.