Re: OT: Religious Hatred

Alan Hope wrote:
Thanatos goes:

DAB guy:
If you are against any limitations on freedom of speech then you
MUST be able to argue the case against there being ANY libel laws.

No, because if someone holds up a placard saying "X is a paedophile!"
without any evidence, then they're falsely stating something as fact
(not an opinion, so no freedom of expression is involved) which could
harm X's reputation, and X has every right to pursue them through the
courts over it.

It's important also to remember that libel is a battle between one
individual and another (on the whole). The purpose of the laws are not
to stop you saying what you want, but to provide that the person who
suffers damages thereby can have some redress.

What is the point of having a law if it is not to dissuade someone from
carrying out something that is against the

So you are free to say what you like.

What a ridiculous argument. Short of glueing someone's lips together
people are obviously free to say whatever they like, but if whatever
they've said breaks the law then they can be charged under, for example,
incitement to murder/terrorism/racial hatred etc, or be sued for libel.

But you may have to either
justify it or pay the consequences. It's a case of "my freedom to
swing my fist freely stops where your nose begins".

Yeah, it's like Abu Hamza's freedom to incite would-be terrorists stops
once he's started saying whatever he's saying, you cock. So, he's not
actually free to say it in the eyes of the law. And nor does someone
have the freedom to libel others in the eyes of the law.

That's quite a different matter from a state-sanctioned law enforced
by the police which punishes you for statements you make. Whereas the
libel law requires the plaintiff to show hurt and damage,


In libel actions, the burden of proving the truth of the allegations is
on the party that makes the allegations. The fact that a story is true
is not, therefore, enough. Can the story be proved to be true?"


"Definition of defamation

2 This is a false statement made by one person about another which
involves some imputation (accusation) which discredits that person's
character, reputation or credit worthiness. A defamatory statement must
be communicated to at least one person other than the subject of the
statement. It can be communicated by, for example, spoken or written
words, or by photographs, cartoons or effigies. In other words it can be
communicated in any way in which meaning can be conveyed."

I don't see anywhere that the plaintiff has to prove that the libel has
*actually* resulted in something negative happening as a result of the

For example, if a newspaper accuses a politician of being a liar, as it
says above, the burden of proof is on the newspaper to prove that the
allegation is true, and it is implied that being accused of being a liar
damages the politician's reputation.

laws are thought crimes pure and simple: you could still be tried even
if your words had no effect whatsoever.

Where's the difference between the examples of a libellous statement
being published in a newspaper and a statement that incites people being
published in a newspaper? In both cases it could be impossible to show
that anybody reading the statement has been effected by the statements,
yet both people making the statements can be taken to court.

Steve - - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices: