Free speech hypocracy.....Part II

[Dr Mordrid]

So....the BBC News site says Australian courts hold that Dow Jones can be sued for defamation for what they say on their US based websites;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2560683.stm

BUT....on the SAME PAGE this is noted;

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Sheeshhhh.......

Dr. Mordrid

[thop]

hehe, i dont understand what you're trying to say at all

[Dogbert]

There's also a trial against KaZaA (non American company) in the U.S.
It's going to make big waves.

[RichL]

Last I looked the BBC wasnt based in or owned by Australians.

[Dr Mordrid]

No....I'm just showing the disparity in "free speech" and the expectations of same.

IMHO one more example of countries trying to muzzle speech in the US because they don't like our brand of REALLY free political/economic/social issue speech. I guess the truth hurts sometimes...

Dr. Modrid

[RichL]

So wheres the hypocracy?

[thop]

i still dont get it, but i think neither the UK nor australia claim to have pure freedom of speech.

[Dr Mordrid]

Look up 3 posts....and maybe they should try it sometime.

Dr. Mordrid

[thop]

and seeing that you edited your comment, i still dont see where the US free speech is fundamentaly different to what other countries have.

[ZokesPro]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
No....I'm just showing the disparity in "free speech" and the expectations of same.

IMHO one more example of countries trying to muzzle speech in the US because they don't like our brand of REALLY free political/economic/social issue speech.

Dr. Modrid

We have this so called "free speech" in Canada but we don't have much to say!

Seriously though, I don't see the problem with freedom of speech unless you go out of your way to defame someone or insult them directly! (like Chrétien's friend there, what her name? )

[The PIT]

Nice to know what was orginally said. But then if it was posted here old murc would get sued as well.
Another case of lawyers making money.

[RedRed]

Dr M
What is the problem here?

we have a simple CIVIL law in the uk (and, I believe in Australia) whereby you may not publish or promote material which is factually incorrect and slanderous.

It is not up to the state to prosecute liabel. (in fact it cant!)

this has nothing to do with the state crushing freedom of speech - rather it is upholding the individuals right to have factual and non slanderous material posted about them.

I am fairly sure that you have simmilar laws.

as to the BBC not being responsible for third party links - of course its not!
Amazon to new-your times publishes simmilar disclaimers when the link to third party sites. You are being silly!

RedRed

[GNEP]

Erm, well I might be a bit drunk (surprise!) but in terms of economic value that's basically sod all.

S&P (yup, I have dealt directly with them and the ones I know are good people) decided to re-organise their S&P 500. And my company got knocked out because they're not American. Sods.

This directly affected a lot of out bonuses/share options etc. But heh, having done the same thing for years you'd expect them to carry on. "Free speech" in any country means absolutely nothing.

And my post makes no sense because I'm pissed (UK pished not US pissed)

[Sasq]

Redred, Yup thats basically it. The Australian laws usually pretty close to the UK ones for most civil and criminal things.

I can't see this causing a massive surge in civil cases from Australia though, as most Australians either couldn't be bothered, or distrust lawyers more then the desire for clearing ones name/revenge/money.

Also from memory the burden of proof is on the person claiming damages not on on the defendant.

[RedRed]

Thanks Mr Sasq!

RedRed