Where there's ability to defame, there's a need to identify
Posted Sunday 24th June 2007 10:38 GMT
Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, its surely self-evident that if a site provides the ability to defame, then the site also needs firstly the ability to remove the defamation on request and secondly the ability to disclose the identity of the defamer.
This is the slippery slope.
As soon as someone finds something, anything offensive you have to apply this censorship. Eventually you can't say anything as anything you say might be considered offensive to someone.
In cases like this, we often spend too much time trying to work out what the law actually says, and not enough time trying to rewrite the law so that its meaning is clearer.
The law should not be unclear, nor should it continue to be written by people who have a vested interest in writing the law in an unclear manner because by doing so it keeps the perpetrators of these unclear laws in business.
Its high time for a new law -- one which requires all future laws to be written in plain language and which requires governments to provide on request a plain language replacement for any law whose meaning isn't fully clear to the average member of the public.
This is why we have lawyers.
Because we have lawyers we have laws that need a lawyer to wiggle through them.
No one is stopping anyone from rendering their own defense but as the man said representing yourself in court is like performing brain surgury on yourself.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month