Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[fretmeister]

As a lawyer I think the biggest problem in this thread is that we have people from dis-similar jurisdictions attempting to argue their case on the basis of their understanding of local law that has little or no impact beyond the usual geographical boundaries, without even getting to the point of considering the Treaties which might allow (or not) the enforcement of a judgment from one country in another. The differences in privacy laws between the UK and USA is immense. The differences in defamation and libel law is even bigger.

So my professional opinion is.... there is no way in hell I am even going to attempt to unpick all the possible threads from the yesses, the noes, the hows, the whys, the wheres and the do you mind if I donts?


However, the publication of a home address is not a freedom of speech issue. There is no opinion in an address (insert Gettysburg joke here), no possible debate. The only possible reason for publishing an address is to provide a means for contact (and possibly incite it) and in this era of the web there is no need to publish details for physical contact / location, especially a home location and especially after a vitriolic public argument.

The Data Protection Act does not apply to the USA of course, but the Act even recognises the sanctity of physical location details in that the DPA provides for an exception - if a physical address is requested then the information holder can release the details if it is for the purposes of litigation / service of papers. If that doesn't apply then the presumption is that the information should not be published.

[Ayaan]

It's nearly 4 am here, so sorry if this has been mentioned...How in the goddamn hell would PZ or the person who posted the address even know for sure if the address was the correct one? Myers and the poster would both run the substantial risk of involving themselves in something nasty either way, but especially if someone who has no connection to this whole drama is injured in some way.

[rachelbean]

Well Ayaan, that is a valid point as well. They just got the info from the whois database for rationalia (it's no longer there, that's one good thing that came of it. We have to be more careful), but there was no guarantee that it was actually Pappa's information.

[colubridae]

What got me thinking of it again was Sam Harris's article because he talks about the way PZ is purposefully takes issues and forces an extreme polarization that doesn't actually exist. He is creating these false dichotomies and it just confuses me as to why, but I suppose that is just how some people think the world needs to be viewed. Doesn't seem very rational to me.

My guess as to "why" is a combination of PZ Myers just not being all that sharp, and at the same time having a fairly extreme political agenda.

He also needs to generate hits on his site, or his funding dries up.

[Robert_S]

What got me thinking of it again was Sam Harris's article because he talks about the way PZ is purposefully takes issues and forces an extreme polarization that doesn't actually exist. He is creating these false dichotomies and it just confuses me as to why, but I suppose that is just how some people think the world needs to be viewed. Doesn't seem very rational to me.

My guess as to "why" is a combination of PZ Myers just not being all that sharp, and at the same time having a fairly extreme political agenda.

He also needs to generate hits on his site, or his funding dries up.

I don't think it's about the money from the hits themselves, but somebody's gotta pay for all that travel to the conventions. So he does have to remain popular and keep his name out there lest some other upstart atheist celebrity ( ) take his slot at the podium.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Pubics or Perish".

[Mysturji]

As a lawyer I think the biggest problem in this thread is that we have people from dis-similar jurisdictions attempting to argue their case on the basis of their understanding of local law that has little or no impact beyond the usual geographical boundaries, without even getting to the point of considering the Treaties which might allow (or not) the enforcement of a judgment from one country in another. The differences in privacy laws between the UK and USA is immense. The differences in defamation and libel law is even bigger.

So my professional opinion is.... there is no way in hell I am even going to attempt to unpick all the possible threads from the yesses, the noes, the hows, the whys, the wheres and the do you mind if I donts unless and until somebody pays me.

[fretmeister]

ha ha ha!!!

"As your lawyer I recommend you pay me money" - Lionel Hutz (The Simpsons)

[Coito ergo sum]

Is this true, Brits? http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20104567/i ... me-in-jail

Some of the things they're outlining as illegal speech seem very tame. I mean, saying soldiers should go to hell? Burning a paper poppy?

[Red Celt]

Is this true, Brits? http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20104567/i ... me-in-jail

Some of the things they're outlining as illegal speech seem very tame. I mean, saying soldiers should go to hell? Burning a paper poppy?

It's a sad state of affairs, but yes... such cases of free speech have come under the umbrella clause of "incitement", whereby someone is allegedly inciting others to do harm. It is a travesty, it really is.

One thing that might be worth mentioning, however, is that this has been referenced as a "U.K." issue, although England and Wales has its own legal system that isn't duplicated in Scotland, and N.Ireland. No idea what Scotland's legal system does with cases like this, but the libel (etc) system in England and Wales is famously horrible... and international disputes are opened there, precisely because the legal system allows for outcomes that wouldn't be dreamt of in other countries.

[laklak]

As much as I despise the assholes, I'd rather have Westboro Baptist holding "God Hates Fags" signs then prohibit their right to free speech, incendiary or not. Prohibiting speech because it might "incite" someone is a true slippery slope.

[charlou]

As much as I despise the assholes, I'd rather have Westboro Baptist holding "God Hates Fags" signs then prohibit their right to free speech, incendiary or not. Prohibiting speech because it might "incite" someone is a true slippery slope.

[Robert_S]

As much as I despise the assholes, I'd rather have Westboro Baptist holding "God Hates Fags" signs then prohibit their right to free speech, incendiary or not. Prohibiting speech because it might "incite" someone is a true slippery slope.

True that. It is worth remembering that at one time, it would have been easier to to censor LGBT folks than Westboro folks and should homophobia and that there's no predicting who will get censored ten or twenty years down the road if the state has censorship powers.

[charlou]

How do you feel about censoring people on internet forums? Accusing people of IMT and threatening suspension for posting unpopular ideas?

I'm not going to harp on that point, just posting it as a thought to reconsider.

[Red Celt]

How do you feel about censoring people on internet forums? Accusing people of IMT and threatening suspension for posting unpopular ideas?

I'm not going to harp on that point, just posting it as a thought to reconsider.

Free speech is free speech... regardless of where it happens - including forums. But, alas, we don't have that utopia here.