Internet censorship in the UK

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the main objection I remember reading when this was going on was the fact that despite ample opportunity no government had actually declared this image illegal. I'm also not sure how much "Orwellian Nightmare" you can cry though; aren't the IWF as well as the ISPs who are voluntarily blocking the stuff private organizations?

Yes, I hear a lot of people are coming down with the flu... hope you're better soon.

Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're making with the links. Someone with an axe to grind published a list of members. Being known to be a member puts you at risk of attack from leftist nutters and Islamist cranks, as well as giving you a good chance of losing your job. Of course it's perfectly legal to be a member, and this is reportedly a democracy with "freedom of speech", so some interesting questions are raised. Would you care to expand on my brief observations, Kangoogle?

Exactly: "Unfortunately I have taken the list down to serious violent threats against me and my family by members/supporters of the BNP."

Free speech advocates? Right...

So what? It's hardly surprising. Anyone publishing the list is putting those on that list in real danger. It wouldn't surprise me if a few people acted in that way. Another point is that if a person had that list on a website, then they obviously have something to gain by vilifying BNP members. As I think there are legality issues regarding publishing it, then if they had to remove it for those reasons, saying they'd received threats, even if they didn't, is a logical step to maximise return from the situation.

I wonder why - it might just be because of the way the BNP behave.

Well why hasn't the BNP sued him for libel then!?

I can think of a few reasons, but you'd have to dig around a bit to find out for sure, as I've not really followed this in detail. Firstly, in order to get it removed, they may have negotiated. The legal representatives of the list publisher may have realised their client was on a sticky wicket, and advised they offer to remove it immediately in return for not following up with legal action. Another point is that in taking civil action, the person you're looking at claiming damages from needs assets or insurance to pay those damages. If they do not have those, then what's the point? I'm sure I could think of a few more.