Hi guys and gals!
@LettersHomeToYou: I am aware of that 'Nazi' case, but the discussion here is about 'By Right'. And this judgement is about a forum. In real, forum participation is all decided by the governments and it has to be the nature of things for the nature of that forum. In Europe, a 'Nazi' issue is as much the case of sensitive 'racial' issue in Singapore. This part is about relating to national interest.
In Singapore forum, if you raise racial issues, say, with a hint of racialism in your insults or what, the forum will delete your msgs. In blogs, the government may come in with summons. This is the nature of it; That in China, Falun Gong and such are sensitive. You can't just call someone 'Fulun Gung'. (In a forum, the real issue is by right still the host, not the 'untrained' or 'uninformed' individuals. And the action is to delete, not sue.)
But that doesn't mean it's acceptable on legal basis to sue. All these online cases are still in the transition phase of judiciary understanding on cyberspace happenings, and the technology is still changing! Just because there is this 'Nazi' preceedent doesn't mean anything. Just as someone in USA sold the moon with official sales papers doesn't mean that it is legal or right. Just because people got sued for chewing gums in Singapore or legally punished for being a rape victim in middle east doesn't mean that should be applied worldwide.
So this case is very much about the national interest of European states. It should not be perceived as the usual defamation cases.
Besides, it doesn't matter if you can identify who is who. I am sure WordPress may have now the experience from Brazil to understand this point.
@Singularcontiguity: I have never said libel is not a problem with blogs, but I have explained how such things can occur. We cannot lump every case together. Defamation is after all a tort, you go case by case. I have mentioned that by the nature of blogging, unless someone is crazy enough to declare his or her blog (online space) is a credible publication you will have to be responsible to the gains and the woes from such credibility you seek openly. It's the same if you declare your diary to be a newspaper-like publication, where (eg) you replicate and sell the diary contents. What will happen?
Besides, Wikipedia is not really a legal bible. It's just an entry that even myself may have some inputs. We cannot stick to Wikipedia as no respectable Law faculty shall by right rely on such resources for their legal training or practice. :)
In English laws, there is this issue about taking insane people to courts. Insane people are people whose actions have, for one, no credibility and reasons needed. The nature of blogging is... never official but always personal, and within the cyberspace as if you are on Mars. No credibility is necessarily established, and it never needs for reasons to input 'UHBVHNWEOUGOHLZNH*)Y*HHOEHNPWJW' or "I just feel like f***ing Bush". If you consider it similar to an appraisal in many cases, you'd understand.
So that explains the 'Nazi' case. It's not even valid legally as no English laws really provide for that which appeals or can override international behavior under the UN charter be it on discrimination or sovereignty. One lone state cannot provide for such legal power's implementation, by right. If we outside Britain were to find the 'Nazi' (or using 'communist') calling acceptable or even welcoming, when has English Laws been so powerful to judge that this English man who appeal to a public on a global platform is illegal? If German is still facist, (But China is still considered communist) this is a show of state animosity. Got the nature of this concern even if the plaintiff and defendant are both British?
So we have to see the case of the threadstarter and hopefully we can settle the issue within cyberspace. No lawyers have really undergone New Media laws' training as there is never one internationally, since no state can claim they own any part of cyberspace or moon, or sun, or galaxy.
So if lawyers have never gone through such training, going to lawyers will only lead to more 'strange' preceedents. Which is why I have never advocated such moves in real.
@Diamondfistwerny, Cathleen222 and Mach10: If court cases are just 'I believe this an this is so, and I cannot agree or even believe in Scope' and you can close the case, then why should people read laws?
In legal terms, injuria is not necessarily amounting damages. I have to repeat again. Just because you feel hurt doesn't mean you should sue. By right, again, legal methods should be the last resort. This is the thumbrule especially for defamation cases; because your public relation issues are not and should not be that of the courts'.
It doesn't really matter if your diary appears on the search engines, or someone told your mother about your diary (maybe you feel like having sex with the teacher and you wrote that down). I am trying very hard to help people understand here. The nature of the (eg) diary never changes with bots (search engines) or people peeping and spreading the contents.
You can call this a loophole or what, but an online diary is still very much a diary. Your personal diary. When the computers took over, they replace the papers. We cannot lump every piece of paper in this world to be considered as the next 'New York Times', which is legally ridiculous. Why hence should there be any special status between a state publication, New York Times, a blog or home video and official productions?
It is not hard hence to identify the legal concerns each enjoys. But many people simply lump everything together. They can do that, by insistence which is regretfully barbaric. If so, why justice?
Let me just put it very clearly, it doesn't matter if anyone agrees or disagrees: New York Times and a blog are different.
Nobody will link the nature of the two together, unless (eg) Raincoaster declares her blog to be a credible news publication. Otherwise how can anyone claim the same legal privilleges between the two?
With such new tech in communication, interaction on differences are available via comments and such functions. Between two parties, if your communication is open, how justifiable is anyone to make the courts their PR departments?
So only lousy courts admit such... funny cases.
Love cannot be ordered, dear people. Just because people doesn't love you doesn't mean there are damages. The world doesn't love Scope, where can I claim damages? LOL.
Hope that helps. And of course, I have never said 'by left' we don't have absurd courts, crazy judges, substandard governments and so on.