Lawyer's note for contributors to this blog

Lawyers at News International has asked me to post the following note about comments:

No comments will be posted on my blog until they have been personally reviewed by me.  Unfortunately, this does mean that sometimes there will be a gap in time before readers' posts can go on-line, but I regret this cannot be avoided.  I do hope that you will continue to post comments on my blog.  I value the exchange of views it provides.

f

Comments

[Bartholomew]

I once had someone come after me for a comment written by someone else - I hadn't moderated it, I removed it when asked, and it was on an old blog entry that hardly anyone had read anyway. Yet because the person concerned had a mate who was a solicitor, he was able to give me months of hassle at no inconvience to himself.

[J Pearce]

"Lawyers will be the bane of us all (and I'm married to one!)."

Possibly not for long, upon viewing the contents of your last posting, Mr Truth?

:-)

[The Truth Hurts]

Lawyers will be the bane of us all (and I'm married to one!).
I feel a leaden tone in your voice Ruth, as if you sighed and said "Oh if I have to, then just tell me what I have to tell them and I'll publish it".

But on a lighter note:
1 What's the definition of 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
Answer. A good start.

2 What do lawyers and bananas have in common?
Answer: there's not a straight one to be found.

3 And on a more religious note.
A deceased chap reported to St. Peter at the Pearly Gates but was refused entry. The fellow asked why he couldn't be let in and Peter told him that he had received instructions to prevent his entry. So the annoyed chap demanded to speak to a lawyer and have his case properly presented to God. After a while Peter returned and said "I'm really sorry son, but there don't seem to be any lawyers at all here in Heaven".

Ruth, kindly forward my posting to the lawyers at News International.

[Kate]

I think I'm in love. ;)
Posted by: Fr. Van Windsor

So glad. 'I think' it's mutual :)

[j]

can I introduce some random filth into my posts?

[Fr. Van Windsor]

"Abuse: is this to be downgraded semantically? To be purely subjective: I 'feel' abused; don't 'like' the opposition; opposition doesn't 'like' me, ergo I am 'abused'? More fitted perchance for primary playgrounds than mature discourse.

Abuse can be: physical, mental or sexual cruelty; inhumane treatment generally; foul, coarse, language used to revile or intimidate. WHERE is the cursing, or foul language on this blog, all other categories are irrelevant."

I think I'm in love. ;)

[cp36]

>>but I had thought the rest of the world had avoided this disease.

No, it didn't. Whatever happened to the good old "things British" these days?

Cheers

[Kate]

All this seems to hinge on two words splattered across voluminous, deeply subjective, postings i.e. 'libel' and 'abuse'.

For those of us not in "correspondence" with Times lawyers, it would be useful to know the precise definition (in Law) of 'libel' and 'abuse'.

There is of course a one year statute of limitations on UK libel. I mention this only because it is not the first time an individual posting here has been in 'correspondence' with the Times lawyers.

Libel: While, for some, "the whole point of writing [anything] is self-promotion” (Benjamin Franklin); the act of self-promotion in the public sphere - national and local media - requires a verifiable identity, business and/or personal address and usually, fax, phone or email contact information.

That is qualitatively different to pseudonymous self-promotion in an esoteric context e.g. on a Faith blog; it is also quantitatively different in the numbers it is likely to influence, attract or repulse.

We need to know therefore, HOW anonymous or, indeed, pseudonymous, writers, operating in an esoteric context, can be libelled.

There is a distinction between robust disagreement and, attempts to drown out, misrepresent, or censor via rebarbative, consistent and overwhelming pursuit.

The latter might be categorised 'libel' or 'abuse'? Here it seems, 'libel' and 'abuse' only appears where the 'pursued' uses salient argument to undermine or dispel, the strongly held convictions or promotional self-image of the pursuer? Extraordinary logic.

Abuse: is this to be downgraded semantically? To be purely subjective: I 'feel' abused; don't 'like' the opposition; opposition doesn't 'like' me, ergo I am 'abused'? More fitted perchance for primary playgrounds than mature discourse.

Abuse can be: physical, mental or sexual cruelty; inhumane treatment generally; foul, coarse, language used to revile or intimidate. WHERE is the cursing, or foul language on this blog, all other categories are irrelevant.

If the 'self-defined abused', claim the 'right' to misrepresent, and speculate offensively on all aspects of the life, thought, career, beliefs - even prenatal 'mothering' - of other bloggers, we need to know how the law will deal with a counter-suit.

That freedom of speech be restricted so that no one (of like-mind to the complainant) might 'feel' abused or libelled requires abdication of our most basic civil right; 'free speech'. That's fascism.

Oh dear. 'One flew over the cuckoo's nest' Ruth!! One law for the Nurse Ratcheds; lobotomies for the rest of us. If even the mighty Thunderer is intimidated all blogs should close up shop immediately.

Roll on the Caliphate!

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Well, that certainly tells us the kind of folks your attorneys think we are... :)

[P. Dangwer]

It must be a strain on your nerves at times Ruth having to read so many grumpy and sometimes long winded comments from frictional charecters who cant spell.

God bless you and keep you.

[j]

poor ruth. I hope they give you some staff to help.

Times people, are you listening? its a lot more work that hosting the kind of blog where all the posts can just go straight up by self-service. Ruth has a proper herd of cats to manage here.

What happened to your third Advent rule?

[Joel]

Lawyers are ruling and destroying America, but I had thought the rest of the world had avoided this disease.

[Shaun]

Does this actually change anything? Comments already didn't appear till you'd approved them didn't they?

(rg writes: You are quite right. I have posted this comment for a legal reason on the advice of our lawyers as a result of correspondence.)

[Matt Wardman]

Fair enough ...

What's the f an abbreviation for ;-)

[George Parr]

Good idea Ruth. I am sure that no-one here seeks intentionally to libel anyone, although it must be said that robust debate should be expected. At least from now on we can be assured that any content deemed as unacceptable will not appear. Should calm things down somewhat!