Tim Ireland on tabloids, media, blogs and politics
A question regarding identity and equity
This entry was posted on
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 at
2:53 pm and is filed
under The Political Weblog Movement.
Can anyone think of circumstances where it would be fair for a publisher/contributor to issue any comment likely to effect someone’s reputation without staking their own* reputation on it?
Also, should anyone expect to be taken seriously as a publisher if they allow this kind of behaviour on their site when it suits them?
When considering the latter especially, please keep in mind the increasingly extreme abuse, threats and allegations that eventually get thrown around when comment contributors aren’t expected to answer challenges or back up claims with evidence… if they’re on the publisher’s side.
I’m asking these questions for a number of reasons. Please let me know what you think.
Cheers all.
[*Applies if you normally blog/contribute under your own name or a pseudonym, but choose not to when you want to make a comment that you would rather not be associated with.]
| Print article | This entry was posted by Tim Ireland on July 30, 2008 at 2:53 pm, and is filed under The Political Weblog Movement. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 3 years ago
Hi Tim, first comment.I know you've been taking issue with libel law but the defamation act provides you with recourse if you think that a comment, approved by a blogger on his own site, libels you in the minds of right-thinking people and can be understood by Anyone to refer to you.If I were to libel the Prime Minister with disgusting and pointless innuendos and you published it here then you would be liable for what I said.In answer to your first question, of course it isn't fair – that's why the law provides you with recourse and why the law makes publishers responsible for the contect they publish.
about 3 years ago
Hello, undignified, and welcome to Bloggerheads.In my view, the law fails to protect everyone and it favours the moneyed/connected. Your average person will not have the resources to even find out who they might want to take to court.All it offers is a theoretical solution to a single symptom.
about 3 years ago
I understand that and it has always been so but conditional fee arrangements have opened up that area of the law to claimants who have a good case (and can find a lawyer who agrees – CFAs are great for lawyers).Obviously one of the most important things would be to show that the comment was distributed to third parties.Interestingly one wonders whether various bloggers would still be quite so keen to bang on about quite how many people read their blogs if the level of damages in a libel claim was to be decided by it!
about 3 years ago
Why would someone rather not be associated with one of their comments, especially when on teh interwebs a pseudonym can be used to protect your offline ID?Because the comment is there to mislead, misdirect, smear, slander or undermine. Simple.
about 3 years ago
Sim-O: There are sure to be cases where past victims of bullying on the sites of Dale/Staines/etc. decide to post anonymously. Of course, matters are somewhat muddied by the bullies claiming that *they* remain anonymous to avoid being bullied.undignified: I fail to see why it should even get to a money-spinning stage for lawyers when all it would take to make things a hell of a lot more sensible for many people is for the self-declared 'leaders' of political blogging to stop setting such a bad example (currently they actively exploit anonymous comments and the bullying it breeds).