Freedom of speech

A fake news site.
So everything they say is not true?
They sort of joke?

What happens if you say something in good faith?

Oh and guess what AmMaz , the very same people who may exercise their right to be offended by whatever offensive things it is your right to say without persecution (without persecution does not mean that nobody is allowed to object or be upset btw!).. those very same people are the people who would defend you if you were to be imprisioned or hung for speaking your mind.

"You may have heard Speaker John Bercow yesterday denied Donald Trump the right to speak in Westminster Hall when he visits the UK."

Both GracesGran Mk2 and MawBroon have called this 'Fake News'

"He did not refuse Donald Trump the right to speak, etc., he told Parliament that he will not be inviting him to address Parliament in Westminster Hall. To deny someone a right they must have it in the first place and nobody does when it comes to addressing Parliament in Westminster Hall unless they are invited to do so."

I think you are really trying it on if you don't think Bercow was clearly stating his position would be to deny Donald Trump the privilege of speaking in Westminster Hall and he is the only person who could extend that invitation. Bercow was making it as clear as a bell that was intention.

The odd thing is Bercow had not been asked to make such an invitation to Donald Trump he was responding to the Early Day Motion which was calling for Trump not to be invited.

Bercow has a duty in accordance with position of Speaker.

'The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and must remain politically impartial at all times.'

"Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the Speaker will deal with their constituents' problems like a normal MP."

Lord Fowler is correct when he says:-

First, there will be other leaders coming to this country who may also be controversial. The procedure as it stands means that either Mr Speaker or myself can effectively veto any proposal for a visiting leader to address Parliament at least as far as Westminster Hall is concerned. I think it is for Parliament to consider whether there is a better way in which such decisions can be made.'

'Second, for the time being there may be a situation where one of the Speakers decides he cannot agree. Before we reach this point there should be, at the very least, some effort to reach consensus and a serious discussion on what the decision should be. I hope that we can now return to that previous practice.'

I am not making a case either for or against Donald Trump I am concerned with Parliamentary Protocol and Bercow failed in his duty to be politically impartial.

Presumably you have to make an aject apology and say you were wrong and given the wrong information to try to avoid being sued.

(Or tweeted constantly day and night)

It is GN who would be sued, not an individual poster I think.

It is GN who would be sued, not an individual poster I think
I haven't a clue what when down but from snippets on posts: wasn't MN forced to reveal a posters identity to someone (from a pyramid scheme type company) who wanted to sue?
And I'm pretty sure there were other threats to specific posters in previous legal issues?

It's expensive though and the onus is on the person sueing to prove it's not true which usually just brings negative publicity so it's not common..especially not for a one-off, but when in doubt report your own post for deletion.

wasn't MN forced to reveal a posters identity to someone (from a pyramid scheme type company) who wanted to sue?
And I'm pretty sure there were other threats to specific posters in previous legal issues?

I think so. Though the one I saw was a plastic surgeon in Harley Street whose work was getting dissed on MN.

MN was forced to hand over the email addresses and IP of the two posters from what I can remember.

Certain posters have an habitual liking to put up links to some dubious sites and this point keep rearing it's head.

Fake News is usually the domain of those who wish to do others harm and will read and watch any idiotic blogger, read and distribute stories and information that discredit those they dislike.

Either some are extremely gullable or all too quick to accept any photo, story , blog that suits their remit but sadly some others believe in them as credible.

That's not one of the ones I was thinking of, I never heard of that, so must be fairly common.

Anyway, GNHQ has now removed the Fake News item.

17.54

"We believe this to be a fake news story that is going viral so have deleted."

Is that an official view from GNHQ? If so the format adopted seems her strange ?

Perhaps it's the CIA...

One thing I don't understand, although I do get if it's correct technically, I just don't think it's fair!.. if something is "viral" - and it's not started by you just shared by you.. seems a bit off that you are the one who can be sued for it if it's also available all over the rest of the internet?? You sharing it will hardly have made a dent?

Seems the right time and the right place for this.

That is an interesting point. If someone repeats something that's all over the internet in good faith how can it be justified in having it deleted? I bet we've all been guilty of doing exactly that. And it will only get worse in this increase of fake news.

Not like durhamjen to quote an unspecified source though. Yet a quick google made it clear it was untrue.

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

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.

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

www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

Assuming this in itself is true!

The relevant bit is half way down.

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.

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

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.

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