Encyclopedia Dramatica user hit with £10k damages after calling ex-councillor a 'paedo' A user of satirical wiki Encyclopedia Dramatica has been hit with libel damages of £10,000 in England, UK, after posting untrue accusations of paedophilia and mocked-up sex photos featuring a former Labour councillor on the site. The case, heard earlier this month in London's High Court, was brought by Samuel Collingwood Smith …
It's not that hard to find, and if you want to get some idea of things like anonymous or 4chan it's probably a better reference source than wikipedia.
I don't get why it's seems to be that bad to read it, occasionally it can be funny often it's juvenile, it's not something thats worth judging someone on though for reading, unless you have almost prudishly high moral standards.
Encyclopedia Dramatica is one of the more amusingly offensive destinations on the web.
Is it? I haven;t been there in years. It used to be good, but the site was overrun with brain-dead morons who kept replacing decent and witty satire with low-level toilet-stall graffiti.
Apologies.
I was getting mixed up with Uncyclopedia but it wouldn't surprise me if ED met the same fate.
I wonder who is paying the legal bills for this Labour councillor - isn't it odd how chippy the tribunes of the plebs are? - to pursue his online vendetta. I'm not sure whether I am sympathetic or not; the slanders are horrible, but I'd rather not have online censorship. And surely it's rather risky for this bloke to try all this against someone who might, for all he knows, be inclined to violence.
"
slanders are horrible, but I'd rather not have online censorship
"
The two are completely separate issues. Freedom of speech does not mean that you can say what you like with no legal (or other) consequences, and being forced by a court to remove damaging and untrue information is not censorship in the way the word is usually used.
Satire should be at least intelligent, and have some sort of lesson in it. See: The Onion.
The lesson here is "Give some people a free and anonymous platform and they will behave like dicks."
And we already knew that.
So the question posed now is "does this so-called satirical website have any worth that justifies its contribution to environmental heat fallout?"
If this sort of "material" is indicative of the general content, the obvious answer would not seem to be encouraging.
@Stevie; "Give some people a free and anonymous platform and they will behave like dicks."
Basically just John Gabriel's Greater Internet F***wad Theory, then?
"there's a lot of gifs and the contributers don't seem to like anything or anyone."
It's been like that forever, I think (though I think they were shut down a while back, then re-started 'under new management' ???). I went there once or twice (or maybe a few more times) for a laugh, but not for YEARS. I first heard of it when someone prominent on IRC said "hey I have an article about me on E.D." and it was both scathing and cruel.
So now someone does a libel lawsuit, no doubt some kind of judge's order to locate the various anonymized people, which gives legal searches and seizure the teeth they need, and makes a point to the 'anonymous' ranters on E.D.: You are NOT 'anonymous' any more.
And, I'd say that about sums it all up. I doubt the plaintiff will EVER get his judgement paid, and the people who did it may not even be within jurisdiction of the U.K.. They didn't bother showing up to the trial, and got a summary judgement against them. And now, if it's like it is in the USA, *all* of that is a matter of public record now, so anybody wanting the info could find out the REAL names of the defendants.
That may be 'enough retribution' in and of itself.
how did you even find out about it, are you googleing yourself, or is this a normal destination on the web for you?
serious question as I have no idea if anyone has ever said anything about me on line apart from Facebook, which seems to tell me that they have.
See title.
Much like the lost art of decorum and discretion, most people have no clue when too much is too much. Our modern social media of rewarding outrageous, stupid, jackass, acts doesn't help.
You know, like "Ouch My Balls!" (ref: Idiocracy)
In other words, you can get away with almost anything if you are clever about it. You don't need a sledge hammer when a gentle shove will do the job.
I'll see your title and raise it...
Context..
Apropos the subject of the article, having spent a couple of idle 'insomniacal' hours followed 'the maze of twisty little passages' we're not talking about submissions to the (New Yorker|Private Eye|whatever) here, but the Internet equivalent of the scribblings in green 'Sharpie'™ found on toilet walls.
I'll also now like to mutter 'Streisand effect', TGTN and bid you all adieu...
Agreed.
Have you seen some of the so-called 'pranks' on youtube. Sigh.. They seem to think filming them makes them funny and OK.
Here's a hint for them: If you do something nobbish to someone, it is still just as nobbish if it's being recorded. The only difference is that you're now not just a nob, but are a nob with a camera.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
