Posted Friday 5th December 2008 20:07 GMT
So they do think that it is fine for someone to go around saying (when it's not true) that she abuses the child, performs "sexual services" for someone and all that? I understand they might be criticizing the part about not saying bad things about the dead even when they are true things, but it does not seem like that is the case. And in any case, nobody is forbidding anyone from saying anything. Just applying the consequences... :-P
Posted Saturday 6th December 2008 00:11 GMT
The article said something about "blacken the memory of one who is dead", but did not said she was dead. So what's the relation?
By the way, is it actually possible to write (as we're talking of libel and not slander) whatever you want about a dead person, since they cannot sue you back?
If I write that Churchill slept with Hitler, can I be sued for libel (or stupidity?)
Posted Saturday 6th December 2008 00:11 GMT
stop being such a pedantic wanker...
can I go to jail now?
Posted Saturday 6th December 2008 00:40 GMT
I'm glad you asked that question. I read the article twice and am under the same confusion, though admittedly it's been one of those days.
Paris cos I feel about as smart as her after reading this article.
Posted Sunday 7th December 2008 11:58 GMT
Thats right, its free if its been cleared by the PC crowd....
Posted Sunday 7th December 2008 11:58 GMT
The part that applies to the ex-girlfriend is this:
"Truth is not a defense in such cases [the dead], or in ones that 'expose the natural defects of one who is alive'."
Since she's alive, they must be using "the natural defects" angle. I just hope the law defines "natural defect."
Posted Sunday 7th December 2008 11:58 GMT
No she's not dead. They were just expounding on some of the differences between this and a civil libel law. But the really alarming part, with this law at least, is that truth is not a defense. So even if she really did abuse their child, scam welfare and pay her lawyer with sex, he could still be punished for saying so.
Posted Monday 8th December 2008 11:04 GMT
I am disgusted that The Register posts material like this. That should read "to which Weichel had access".
Posted Monday 8th December 2008 12:42 GMT
Boris Johnson is really a camel in disguise.
There.
I said it.
Back to the article
