Freedom of speech

The word "impartial" has been bandied about on this thread. Muddled thinking.
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. He or she is supposed to be extremely partial when it comes to defending the traditions and processes of parliament, and of our democratic processes. Someone in the strangers gallery behaving badly and shouting the odds? Out on their ear on the authority of the speaker.
An MP calling another member by their real name (rather than "the honorable member for much dibbling in the marsh" )? In big trouble.

I don't actually think that the disclaimers that people often believe get you off the hook, actually hold up!

for example " well this is what X has to say on the subject (insert link) "
Doesn't as far as I'm aware, deflect from you onto X. You shared it, you're responsible.

If those disclaimers worked then there would be no problem as it would automatically deflect to the author of the link anyway?

Yes I think the qualifying thing is the way to go but that may be naive.

GNHQ may say something different.

It's up to us to make sure ( reasonably sure) that we are not just repeating fake news, lies,malicious gossip...
stuff from dubious sources should not be repeated on here as if they are Gospel.
If not sure, better not print it,or at least qualify your comment with a 'I found this from this link/source it may not be true?' that way at least we may stay out of trouble regarding libel.

So how do we stand if we repeat something that is repeated world wide and we do so in good faith? No one realises it's not true , but is later found to be false. I think it is expecting the impossible

That's to gnhq

I always feel a bit sorry for the person who gets picked on whitewave.
Someone suddenly gets "picked on" from a great height.

I have now asked them to come on and comment Ana. No idea if they will take any notice.

Doesn't get us any further though.

Perhaps we should get legal advice. I'll try googling it in the morning - unless there been a reply before.

Newspapers have good legal teams, and probably have "sinking funds" for payoffs etc. I imagine they're not very effective targets. Individuals are probably easier to "Get" if you want to make an example of someone

No, Ankers, I haven't. I just thought they might have commented further to their removal of the quote.

Perhaps that what we ought to do

Anything I say is probably not true or something along those lines

whitewave, about newspapers - don't they all have a small section at the bottom of a page somewhere for 'corrections and clarifications'? I expect that's how they get out of most potential lawsuits.

www.politico.com/story/2017/01/melania-trump-libel-suit-blogger-234263

Now I will contact gransnet, assuming Ana has not already done so, for their guidance.

I am confused.

money.cnn.com/2017/01/27/media/melania-trump-defamation-lawsuit/index.html

No idea if the libel laws are the same in america as over here. Looks like they might be.

I presume linking this doesnt get me into potential trouble.

I would assume that applies to gransnet as well.
Though agree with Ana that it would be nice for someone to comment.

whitewave, my opinion, and I could be utterly wrong, is that someone is picked on, it then gets reported in the media, and bingo, lots of people end up being a lot more careful.

it happened in america about someone who said something that was untrue about trump I think.
I will try and find it later.

So that's ok as far as it goes but it doesn't answer our questions about the World Wide Web. What's printed in newspapers that is subsequently found to be false - there's loads of examples

I found this on MN

KateMumsnet (MNHQ)Sun 29-Jan-17 11:51:02

Hi all

Thanks for raising this - probably best, as a few of you have noted, not to go into too much detail about the recent case but it's a good opportunity to clarify how current libel and defamation law relates to MN and MNers.

Section 5 of the Defamation Act lays out the process by which someone can ask to have posts removed from online forums including MN. First, they have to explain the basis for their complaint; we then contact the poster to let them know that we've received a complaint, and asking them if they want their posts removed or whether they would like them to stand. If they stand by them, then we leave them up; if they don't, or we haven't heard from them within a set period of time, we remove them.

Either way, if the complainant wants to pursue it further they can go to court and apply for an order to access any information we hold about the poster - so it really is worth remembering that you are ultimately responsible for what you post. There's a good explanation of what constitutes libel/slander/defamation over here.

Thanks for suggesting that we make this all a bit clearer on site - that's a very good idea and we'll get an explanation into our FAQs on Monday.

OK I get that I think but what about world wide stuff who gets sued for that?

Given the lies the papers are constantly printing seems a bit stiff

Oh, sorry whitewave, I hadn't realised my point had been established...perhaps GNHQ would like to comment on the likelihood of someone being sued for posting libellous material, whether knowingly or not.

www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

Assuming this in itself is true!

The relevant bit is half way down.

ankers but with it being entirely global how can they sue one person? Because everyone is repeating it if you get my drift

I think they can still be sued whitewave.

And how can someone manage to prove that they acted in good faith? They cant can they.

Doesn't answer the point though ana we've already established your point.