You might find this quite interesting, if you haven’t read it already:

http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-uk-internet-libel-case-coming.html

Anarchyintheuk’s comments are just posturing.

I’m not sure I’m worthy of any particular respect here. I didn’t knowingly write anything libellous about the law firm or their clients, I didn’t link to the Wikileaks copies of documents critical of their clients, and for that matter I did not repost the Hansard excerpt that mentioned them.

It’s also worth pointing out that had I got a legal letter demanding I take down certain material, I would quite possibly have complied. I am not Spartacus, and I’m not going to jail for the Guardian.

But if you believe in freedom of speech it would be ludicrous to stand by and make no comment when a newspaper is, on the face of it, prevented from reporting proceeds in Parliament by court order. That way lies a very dangerous path which we all have an interest in avoiding.

both,

and yes I would. Hosting in the UK is always a bad idea for reasons mentioned above.

I still fail to under your central criticism. What is wrong with bloggers trying to protect themselves using legal trickery. I am sure that bloggers in other countries would have done so had they the tools available to them. No one wnats to be jailed for blogging.

Just out of interest.

Was your decision to have the site hosted in a jurisdiction outside of UK law driven by this form of legal protection or was it more competitive pricing?

If it was a decision taken for legal reasons would you advise anyone else writing a blog on politics and current affairs to do the same?

Yahya

The new FTC rules do affect UK authors, on-line gambling laws in the US do affect UK businesses, the USA Patriot Act does affect UK bloggers etc..

There is a far bigger world than the UK libel laws.

The question posed, How does blog hosting impact your legal situation? was not, should British Libel laws be challenged.

Sunny, selecting a host and domain registrar outside of England and Wales – particularly if the host or registrar’s country isn’t ‘friendly’ to English law as it pertains here – mitigates the risk of legal attacks from that jurisdiction.

But, while these mitigate the risk of content being technologically ‘taken down’ as a result of legal attack, you personally are exposed to similar risks from writing and/or publishing online as you would in print – from libel, contempt of court, and intellectual property rights infringement, to criminal offences e.g. under the Terrorism Act.

There are additional risks associated with online publishing, for example relating to user generated content (e.g. comments on articles) as Douglas rightly highlighted. As you probably know, you can mitigate risk here by not pre-moderating or otherwise monitoring comments but you must investigate swiftly if there is a complaint and remove / suspend / redact offending comment if necessary while you investigate.

It seems worth noting here that the Terrorism Act allows a maximum of only two days to remove content before you commit an offence by not removing it.

Merely pointing to offending content elsewhere, in the form of a hyperlink for example, as opposed to publishing it verbatim yourself, also exposes you to risk.

Also, in general, if user data is demanded from you, you should demand a court order / proper legal authority before providing it as you otherwise risk breaching the Data Protection Act.

Structuring your finances etc so that it is not worthwhile chasing you is beyond me but my guess is that it’s worthwhile doing if you plan on regularly publishing risky content – as is seeking proper advice on all the above.

(I am not a lawyer.)

The point as I see it, is that Bloggers gain credibility by their very openess and if bloggers hide behind layers of lawyers, their honesty comes in to question, which then impacts on a wider sphere.

Fawkes actually says in the video’…I can say what I like because…’ There can be no credibility to anyone who uses a legal conundrum to defend a position to say what they like, the extention to this being, the writer doesn’t believe it, doesn’t believe it to be true but is happily protected.

As far as my responsibility of what is posted on my site, of course I must and that is where we do fundamentally disagree, that has I don’t believe anything to do with ‘political’ stance, simply one of the function and reality of a blog.

You already conceptually accept there are taboo subjects and my taking responsibility for your comments is not therefore an alien though process.

A site owner can change the comment itself that purports to come from the commentator. How can you be responsible for something someone else can very easily edit, censor or publish straight as they see fit?

As far as etiquette: as I have already stated, the host can make a decision and as a guest, I have to respect that decision, but it doesn’t mean I have to pussy foot around. I take the chance that my comments will be deleted, that is where I have a choice, it is entirely up to Sunny, whether he lets the comment stand, edits it or deletes it.

Re the BNP debate. To accept a comment on a website does not in any way suggest the host agrees with that view, which is a completely different issue. I can’t see the two issues of site owners legal responsibility for content published and accepting a comment means agreement with it as having any correlation.

So your criticism is that bloogers like Sunny wanted more protection from libel laws? Why is this an example of cowardice? We know that the libel laws do not favour free speech, and one litigous blogpost could cost the posters thousands of pounds. So to say “publish and be damned” is just ridiculous. Yes, bloggers in other countries risk death/imprisonment, but that doesn’t mean that we British bloggers should just meekly accept the state of libel law in this country.

I’m not sure what special criteria you are applying to your web site that makes it in any way different from, say, this one.

As a sort of ex anarchist leaning person myself I kind of sympathise with what you had to say, although quite why you would want to take responsibility for me makes you somewhat of a different breed of anarchist from my former self.

One of the things we used to take reasonably seriously was personal responsibility. Or, if you like, that no-one else had prior authority over what we said or did?

A host, like Pickled Politics, is thus just that. A friendly public space where you say what you say and, usually, find a welcome. Without going too far into web etiquette a decent guest doesn’t shit on the floor too often. And I wouldn’t, at least not deliberately.

I doubt there is much of a difference between our hosts views and mine on most subjects. However, I have less to lose than he has on certain subjects and I have made here and on LC comments about Carter Luck that are deliberately incendiary. Suggesting that they are struck off is perhaps a step further than Sunny would go, but I think – correct me if I am wrong Sunny – I think he’d agree with the sentiment if not the actualité.

But the responsibility for saying that is mine, and mine alone. It is entirely unreasonable that a meeting place in cyberspace where I comment should be in the firing line for what I say. What judgement would the web host be required to make? It would not be on the merit of the arguement, assuming it had any, it would be on the potential liability. Which is why you have to respect the likes of Mr Eugenides, The Spectator and the like for sticking two fingers up at authority.

Serious case in point, others have challenged the BNP with a series of questions on here. Their replies were unexpurgated, although obviously commented on. Would it be reasonable for anyone to accuse this web site of BNP sympathies for holding that debate or posting their replies? The raw comments from the BNP were perhaps unacceptable to anyone slightly to the left of Ghengis Khan but, if you are going to have a debate with them, you have to be robust enough to publish their shit as well as the counter arguements.

OK, I can see certain exceptions, but none of them apply to people who are warping our justice system for fun and profit.

Sure, you can just hit the delete key on the comments you receive, but frankly, absent obscenity or willful trolling or continuous stupidity, it is not a route that I think has merit.

Frankly we do need a right of free speech, as much to protect web hosts as much as ourselves.

I am genuinely concerned that the legal establishment will see the take down of Carter Luck as a call to arms. That they will find contrary arguements to the one outlined above. That the fuckers will try to legislate even further against modern media. That they will make money out of it. The previous two sentences are interrelated.

In summary, I would prefer it if the law assumed web hosts innocent of liability for comments unless there was a huge case to the contrary. That doesn’t mean the commentators are free of liability though. And neither does it mean that a web host can freely create a site that advocates, say terrorism.

AFAIK Sunny Hundal has never hidden behind a lawyer in his life.

I’m going to ride a bike in a swimming pool in Baldwin Park
I’m going to block the way peacocks on the road in Arcadia
I’m going to wear cowboy boots in Blythe even though I don’t own two cows
I’m gonna sleep in my car in Cathedral City
I’m gonna go for a shit with the window open at Dana Point
I’m gonna use sandboxes as asthrays at El Monte
I’m gonna annoy lizards in the park in Fresno
I’m gonna throw hay in a cesspool in Chico
And drive two thousand sheep down Hollywood Boulevard

Sue me

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100013252/arabs-for-israel-meet-the-egyptian-woman-who-campaigns-against-islamic-culture/

Note the point about the West having lost confidence in its own values.

Note the word ‘I’. I have no need for legal defence teams. If I choose to permit a comment on my website, I am responsible. In the Corporate world, you may want to argue about who owns what and who said what. But the simple fact is. I own my website, I decide what can be published or not and therefore I am the person to whom any issues should be directed.

I know that it isn’t fashionable in the UK today to take responsiblity. If anyone posts a comment on any of my webstes which I approve, I take absolute responsibility for that decision and if anyone is going to be hurt by injunction, legal redress or imprisonment, there is absolutely no way I will release thei presonal information, if it is not already in public domain, responsibility sits on my backside.

I can’t even agree with you regarding comments. As far as I am concerned Pickledpolitics owns this website and is responsible for what is published on it. He has a delete button and he is responsible for using it. If he doesn’t, that is his choice. Hiding behind lawyers is the provenance of the coward.