Rachel North London, whom I have a lot of time for and respect, highlighted on her blog an issue that is close to my heart. And that issue is bullying on the internet. Bullying in any form is totally unacceptable behaviour. It ironic that last night Rachel appeared on 18doughtystreet.com, the internet TV station, hosted by Iain Dale, to discuss the issue of internet bullying, when Iain Dale allows this type of thing to go on his blog Iain Dale's Diary. I thought it was irresponsible of Iain Dale to try to shrug it off as having nothing to do with him, on the ground that he is ignorant of the law on this issue. However, the legal maxim applies "ignorance of the law is no excuse". He is both the author and publisher of his blog, and is therefore legally liable for its content. He has adopted the its his blog he can do what he likes with it stance. He can as long as it is within the constraints of the law. Nobody is above the law not even Iain Dale. His attitude reminds me of some prison governors and the Home Secretary who believe that they are law unto themselves until challenged in the courts and judges tell them otherwise. But he is not alone with this couldn't care less attitude, Guido Fawkes behaves in a similar vein. Perhaps there should be a test case in the courts so that blog authors are taught the limits of acceptable behaviour on the internet?
I note that on Donal Blaney's blog that he does not allow anonymous posters. I think that this is a good idea. But it is not just the anonymous posters who post malicious and harrassing and libellous communications, there are the likes of "peter hitchens" and "verity" who are particularly bad examples of good conduct on the blogs. They feel that they are safe, however, it is not called the long arm of the law for nothing.
I advocate freedom of speech which is not an absolute right. There is a saying in prison that a few bad examples spoil it for the many. And this appears to be true of the blogosphere. If there is not going to be self regulation, then it should be for Parliament and/or the courts to regulate. Parliament has passed the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Perhaps, they should be invoked to see if they are sufficient to stem this growing nuisance?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
8 comments:
errr how on earth can Parliament regulate a website hosted in the US? What if a poster uses an anymous proxy server in Siberia to post a nasty comment about you on the Internet? The Internet cannot be regulated by nation states, period. It is impractical and will produce pintless legislation.
dizzy: You obviously have a good point. Parliament would not be able to regulate a website hosted in the US. That would require international co-operation, perhaps, in the same way that they presently do in relation to child pornography.
I am thinking more of the responsibility of the blog authors who employ comment moderation and still allow comments through that are offensive. I feel that they should be held accountable for this.
As you say, the internet cannot be regulated by nation states because it is a medium that crosses borders. I understand that China uses censorship for the wrong reasons, but it is able to prevent internet access in some cases.
There would need to be international co-operation, and the power to bring sanctions against rogue states.
I think it all boils down to the posters moderating their own posts. Unfortunately some are not as responsible as others, and deliberately use distance and anonymity to fire missiles in the knowledge that they cannot be held accountable for it.
As a man who likes a drink I'm fearful of 'pintless legislation'.
Hello Bob,
Thank you for gracing my pages. Ah, dizzy, he has a good point as they say in Somerset! A typo, I have just realised I left one on your's with statute (lawyerly) as opposed to statue of the rigid nature. Perhaps, John Reid?
If you don't like being "bullied" by the likes of Hitchens and Verity, why do you keep going back for more?
I do not intend to allow my right to freedom of speech to be taken away by idiots sporting swastikas and wearing jackboots.
You didn't answer the question! Your right to freedom of speech is not infringed if you just stick to blogs where you don't get "bullied". You already said you don't rate Guido's blog, so why do you go back for more?
I think I answered the question adequately. Put another way, I don't cower and won't let them shout me down or silence me or dictate which blogs I can and cannot go on.
Post a Comment