Freedom of speech

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps that what we ought to do

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

GNHQ may say something different.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

POGS absolutely!

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.

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

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