The Daily Mail does not have to identify the people behind two anonymously posted comments on its website because to do so would breach their rights to privacy, the High Court has said. The subject of a news story had demanded information from the Daily Mail that would help her to identify the two commenters so that she could …
It;s official then...
...the High Court protects everyone's right to be anonymous nasty trolls!
...for that then, i can now continue being an obnoxious little shit!
(see what i did there? didya, didya?)
Yes, that's right, it's "official". No such thing as a troll.
Whatever sensitive types, wikipediots and their ilk (hi there, Monbiot and Mooney!) would have you believe, posting slightly harsh words on the internet is not a crime.
Dear Mr 21,
I assume 21 is the family name.
Throwing out "communis rixatrix" with the bathwater?
Interesting ... Maybe there's hope for Blighty's so-called "common law" yet!
Now I'm scared to say anything in case I get sued. You wouldn't give me up Reg, would you?
Anon because, well because.
would the reg never give you up, I dare say they would never let you down either.
@Rob Moir ... Damn you for injecting a Rick Astley song into my head!!
I don't think they'd run around and desert you either.
Plain text rick rolling!
GAH! Text only Rick Rolling! Simple yet effective.
Immune to all know forms of no-script >_<
Judge shows common sense?
Blimey. Maybe there's some hope for this sad island after all.
The thing is
These people that under the guise of psuedo anonimity think they can post their generalised, knee jerk and over the top comments to an otherwise un-noteworthy news article, well... they're just morons aren't they, the lot of them..... they should all be banned for life from the internet, mobile phones and be made to carry ID cards.
Going for some kind of anonymous twat-o-tron legal feedback loop where the anonymous commentards repeatedly try to sue other anonymous commentards for defamation of their already dubious character?
You calling me a moron? What's your name? I'm sueing you...
@ a/c 11:57 the thing is
...well I think your family is members oft teh Goldffish family and you smell of cabbage innit.
Suck on dem eggs and all.
"they should all be banned for life from the internet, mobile phones and be made to carry ID cards"
That wouldn't have looked out of place on a Daily Mail comments page. Or, gods help you, the BBC website. Well done. Possibly.
Re: Daily Mail
It may have been ironic if you look again. But I don't know why commentards here get so shocked about the crossover with the Mail threads. It's er, quite big.
Or an ex gf's favourite riposte...
...You smell of chips and bum.
When compared to the airport tweet.
The only problem with this ruling is it assumes the Mail has "..a sensible and reasonable reader .."
Sensible and reasonable readers
I get the impression that a lot of Guardian readers troll the Mail fora (and vice versa).
That would be the obligatory Mail reader?
Trolling the Mail fora
Point of order: some loanwords from Latin still carry their Latin pluralisations in common usage in modern English (nebula/nebulae, formula/formulae, etc). 'Forum' isn't generally one of them. 'Fora' isn't *wrong*, because it's consistent with the rules of Latin, but it's uncommon and risks looking contrived. The rules of Latin don't always apply in English (hence, for example, the freedom to split infinitives in English if you so choose).
The more common, perfectly acceptable, usage in modern English would be 'forums'.
Law in "not an ass" shocker!
Although I'm somewhat torn, because I like seeing the Daily Mail sued.
Sorely missing from TFA
"Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons."
I thought the Mail hated the European Convention on Human Rights?
no but yeah but no but
We have principles and hold them dearly - how much will you pay?
Right to object
She has a right to object to comments about her, and the publication has an obligation to either take those comments down, or leave them visible.
If the publication leaves them on place, she can sue them? at which point the anonymous nature of the posters would be a different matter I would wager.
Seems like a sensible judgement to my mind.
Anonymous, because we trust El Reg, maybe.
What does this mean?
"She has a right to object to comments about her, and the publication has an obligation to either take those comments down, or leave them visible."
In other words, punters can complain and organisations can ignore them, same as it ever was.
When NHS trusts, local authorities, etc. mention a "right to complain" they mean that, overwhelmed by the volume of complaints, they've introduced a streamlined process to accept complaints, provide an anodyne reply and transfer them to the round filing cabinet.
"the publication has an obligation to either take those comments down, or leave them visible."
So the publication has no obligation at all, then? If they're free to choose either of two options then they're not obliged to do one or the other.
that judgement in full
"it is important to remember the context. Everything posted on the Daily Mail web site is horrible bile-fueled invective and noone in their right mind would ever take seriously anything published by the Daily Mail newspaper, its website, its readers or its site commentators."
Different outcome ...
... if it had been a 'well-known celebrity' with a better funded legal team?
I wanted to vote you down for being a terrible old cynic.... but i know your right, so i didnt... ;)
Heres hoping she lost a large portion of the money she got from her original payout in taking this action to the high court...
"Heres hoping she lost a large portion of the money she got from her original payout in taking this action to the high court..."
I'm more inclined to think that just like her first case, she used "no win no fee" ambulance chasers. In her first case she won £12k, but the legal fees came to £500k...
That Leonardo DaVinci cartoon...I don't see the joke!
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
I see what you did there.
Daily Mail readers....
Over heard just last week between two friends:
F1: Well, what do you expect, she reads the Daily Mail.
F2: Its worse than that, she believes it.
Cue my splutter whilst drinking.
Where were the moderators?
One assumes that the the Daily Mail moderates their comments for libellous comments, don't they, or maybe they like to be sued as much as most of us like to see them sued.
Perhaps they didn't feel the comments in question were libelous
Wouldn't be the first time someone completely overreacted to a snide comment methinks... and the yardstick for libel is not, AFAIK, if the subject is offended or not.
There's always the possibility the comments weren't even remotely libelous.
@ Is it me?
Where were the moderators?
Re: @ Is it me?
The moderators were curled up in corners, weeping, weeping.
National newspaper commentards
It's odd. People who add comments to national newspaper web sites, even the quality (former) broadsheets, seem to be mostly ignorant, prejudiced and semi-literate. I've never visited the Daily Mail site, but I don't suppose the standard of comment is higher than in the Times, Independent, Telegraph etc. I've occasionally felt inclined to comment on a story in one of these, but stopped when I saw the company I'd be associating with.
Reg commentards, on the other hand, are usually trenchant, often well-informed, and frequently witty.
...woman. Sounds like a "sue anything for money" person to me.
The point ...
the judge basically said that because the comments were on a public forum, then anyone reading them would (should) understand they are made by people who don't know anymore about the subject than the reader.
So, it's one thing to for "Y" say something nasty about "X" on public forum, where anyone reading can understand that "Y" could be anybody.
It would still be another thing if people reading knew that "Y" knows "X" personally. Because then their comments would carry more weight.
Seems to me the judge is pretty much telling people to get a life.
the hammer and the thumb
I was thinking, a better goal to per-"sue" would be to head down to the hardware store, and buy a sledge hammer, then put your left hand on the pub and slam it with the sledge hammer in the right hand, have a pint or two, while your pub friends ducktape the sledge hammer to the left hand and repeat the process on the right. It's also important to remember, the sledge hammer will also fix any problem with the computer. And yet another possibility is to not become a public figure.
If you can't afford a sledge hammer, I'm sure the court could loan you a gavel, it might take a few more swings to get the message though.
Biblical Precedents .....although Sublime Programming is much more Advanced in Todays ZerodDays
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact." ....... Tron Posted Monday 28th February 2011 12:34 GMT
And it is just that sort of misinformed and decidedly retarded opinion, which may or may not be widely prevalent in the mainstream, should the mainstream even pause a moment to ponder on the significance of the notion, and its relationship to the realities which are programmed and presented to societies for their daily bread/viewing, which allows highly sensitive facts [MkUltraSensitive facts, in fact] to be stealthily shared with significant others/movers and shakers, as if in fabulous fictions/a Good Book.
Methinks, Tron, you be be a lot wiser in changing your opinion and adopting, "Only a fool would take everything posted here as fiction." instead of "Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
And you do realise, do you not, Tron, that fact and fiction can easily be one and same to Create a Virtual Reality, which is an Actuality, and it is Presently causing quite some consternation and more than considerable difficulties within previously ruling elite classes, for they would be realising that their Command and Control of it, with IT and Media Mogul tales, is Gone and now lies way beyond their means and ken, and is led by A.N.Others.
Is it not sore, El Reg, sitting on that fence?
Fact or Fiction?
"Warren Buffett isn’t worried about China surpassing the United States, staying optimistic about America’s future despite other nations rising in power.
"We had four million people here in 1790. We’re not more intelligent than people in China, which then had 290 million people, or Europe, which had 50 million. We didn’t work harder, we didn’t have a better climate, and we didn’t have better resources. But we definitely had a system that unleashes potential," Buffett told Vanity Fair.
"This system works. Since then, we’ve been through at least 15 recessions, a civil war, a Great Depression …. All of these things happen. But this country has optimized human potential, and it’s not over yet," the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway said.
Buffett: China's Economy Isn't About to Surpass US" ..... http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/BuffettChinasEconomyIsntAbouttoSurpassUS/2011/01/05/id/381970
Wow, an ostrich with its head buried in the sand ..... and typical of the hubris which is destroying Uncle Sam's power base. No longer an Omaha sage, as everyone turns over the page to read and learn of New MkUltraSensitive High Tech World Order Programming from Clouds into CHAOS and Virtual Operating Systems, ........ for a Change to Reality, which Warren has oft admitted is something which he knows nothing about and thus avoids investing in, as if IT is the Plague rather than the dDeliverer of Manna from Heaven.
... Ms Streisand...!
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- NSFW Oz couple get jiggy in pharmacy in 'banned' condom ad