Most important 1st Amendment case this decade

How terror financiers are using British Libel laws to stifle exposure of their acts: Fighting Financial Jihad

I'm pretty sure Brit lawmakers didnt have this intent when they established the liberal libel laws. Or maybe they did. They might have just thought they were protecting socialists.

That one can sure in London and receive judgement on a case not within jurisdiction seems a little far fetched. But it happens anyway.

That one can be found guilty of libel by using previously published non-disputed facts seems far fetched.

 

IF you would bother adding two and two... the Jihadist financier, a person NOT RESIDING IN BRITAIN, sued and received a judgement in a British court on a publication NOT DISTRIBUTED IN BRITAIN.
It is not the first time, but others have acceded rather than fighting it.

That makes it a chiller to freedom of speech and of the press everywhere. If the Supreme Court hears this case and agrees with the plaintiff, then we're safe.
If it doesnt make it to the Supreme Court OR they find the British Court has standing in the case, then we are in a heap of trouble.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

If I had said 'protect corporate/fascist interests' would you have objected?
Okay, I will since it was the John Major Conservatives in power when it passed.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm

In FACT, it doesnt MATTER who was in power.. it doesnt matter that the target actually was British Tabloids, it is overreaching as used and stifles dissent.

Another case of simplistic efforts to legislate 'fairness'.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Now, consider this. If that person found against ever has any property or holdings that fall under oversight of the Crown, they may be seized and applied to the judgement.

If the person should set foot in British Jurisdiction she could be arrested and jailed for non-compliance.

 

"Reciprocity" makes the international legal world go 'round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcemen ... _judgments

We'd be in much deeper doo-doo without it.

 

/#$$#$#$#!@#@$

Please tell me what it is you two dont understand about this original post? All you been blathering over 'rights' that Dubya took away from you, never mind you cant actually POINT to them, and you cant grasp THIS?

___________________

Can you grasp the idiocy of the distorted British Legal System
HERE?

:roll:

 

Well, assuming there is no other explanation for their failure to act, that is pretty stupid.

Gives credence to the statement, the U.S. didn't create this legal system, we just made it better.

 

Thanks... that's the point.

Read it all... it's appalling. Britain's governemnt is so afraid of being sued or censured, it's preferable to allow someone to die. Or stay out of hazartdous situations of any sort.

How much longer until the Fire Service forbids going into a burning building to save someone?

This helps:

"our society has become averse to taking risks".


Wonder WHY!

Now read my first two posts again...

 

For those who are reading this and need a little understanding of our system. If you are specialized in and have a professional duty in saving people's lives, as a policeman, fire and rescue, etc., you are held to higher standard as to whether you may at least be held partially reponsible for not coming to someone's aid when they need it and you know about it.

However, you do not necessarily have to risk your own life in the process, and you have absolutely no duty as a bystander (not a policeman, etc.) unless you were responsible for creating the situation in the first place. Regardless, all things would be taken into consideration by a judge or jury of your peers.

So contrary to what Petty is doing with appealing to your first instinct, it is important to get all the facts first.

 

You STILL dont get it... the point is NOT that they did nothing. It's that they were instructed to do nothing. We dont know whether or not they WANTED to rescue the boy.

They had been told they were responsible for the consequences if something went wrong!!!

Sometimes you people make me want to cry!

 

We had a problem with John Edwards' forebears in the magical world of 'Torts Law can make you Rich' in which even doctors giving aid in highway accidents were taken to court and sued if the victim died. Even a weak causality was enough for an award.

Back then though we had some politicians whose brains hadnt completely atrophied into nothing but Greed Sponge and we got the 'Good Samaritan law' which shielded helpful bystanders from blood sucking lawyers.

Looks now like the only remedy in UK is to find some loophole where those officers can STILL be sued and their financial lives ruined .. by those same bloodsucking ambulance chasers...for just following orders.

ALL because of asshole politicians and castrated bureaucrats!

 

More specific. Who said anything about "want"?

 

Eh..? Thought you pointed to the book, code, whatever at first. Now you are saying it was the actual people (first emergency responders) who should be responsible.

Clear up this mess, Petty. I expect better.

 

CF:
How about just going back and reading the article linked to. I'm not a professional writer, she makes the point perfectly clear. I agree with her 100% and no more.
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ---

I was talkign about the litigatious society, Don... that is how a scumbag like John Edwards is associated. OF course you COULD change my mind by pointing out that he had principles and only sued Doc's who were grossly negligent and turned down cases where the doc was only in the room, so to speak-----

 

Damn you, Petty! Making me read the whole article.

Perhaps with a beer, to put me in the right frame of mind, later.

 

I have been trying to read around the case to find out how it could be heard in the UK.

I would have thought that the UK would have refused to hear it having no major claim to juristiction, since neither the publishers, author or the person who brought the lawsuit were UK residents or nationals. It seems that a small number of copies were purchased in the US and exported to the UK giving juristiction.

It has massive implications for anyone who wants to sue for liable, all they have to do is get the books shiped to the UK and they are quids in.

I don't disagree with British liable law, but I don't believe that it should be applied when none of the protagonists are subject to it.

Fog, please read around the story of the boy in Wigan that drowned. We all know that the media distorts the truth to provide a more exciting read. Many reports made it sound like they stood and watched him drown.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manc ... 006412.stm

The guys in question are PCSO's. They have no legal powers beyond that of a normal citizen and have very little specialist training. I doubt even a fully trained officer would have gone into the water in search of the boy.

The following link outlines the 18 week training a PCSO would recieve in Norfolk:

http://www.norfolk.police.uk/article.cf ... &bctrail=0

 

I want to congratulate Don and Fog on a brilliant display of demonstrating why very little is actually accomplished during modern public debates. Following the two of you can be like trying to follow a single locust during a swarm.

Fog, I have seen fewer jumps and leaps at most track and field triple jump events than you have made during this thread. I am going to agree with your original position regarding the liable case in a moment but trying to play connect the dots with some of the other tangent positions you have made in this thread has made me dizzy.

Don, you were much more coherent with your arguments but in my opinion you are off base with this statement:

The first amendment certainly cannot be argued in a British court of law but that does not mean the decision reached by this or any other foreign court cannot infringe upon your first amendment rights. In fact, it is within this authors privilege to submit this case before a US court and make the argument that the British court decision goes against public policy in the US and should not be enforceable in the US.

 

On afterthought, I realized I should have separated the two references.

But I DID NOT 'jump' in my focus! I AGAIN point out that these are not separate isolated cases, they both point to the effect of courts on the society.

And AGAIN.. I want to point out that a civilian standing there may or may not have gone in to attempt a rescue... but the followup shows that the community officers were trained NOT TO. .. the citations in her article shows that this is the norm in British public services.
It is NOT that they chose not to... we cannot fault individual judgement in such a situation, because none of us know what we would do.

The bottom line, connecting both, is that what seems a good idea at the time... the right to redress in the courts.. is a slippery slope.

In the case of libel law, expression is now stifled... even in cases where there is no direct jurisdiction. A point that is highlighted by Franek's first response.

In the second case, freedom to ACT is repressed, amazingly by the charter of the program formed to protect and serve the public. And, again, this is not because the executives of the program chose to do it that way.. it came about from fear of litigation.

The Courts created the problem in both cases, the peoples' elected representatives in their timidity allow these issues to stand.