On 8 Jun 2008 at 13:40, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > ... > > Of course, some people take it too far. Charles Stross, on his blog, > > has recently been editing out any negative reference whatsoever to > > Scientology, going far and away beyond what the law requires. That's > > censorship, and it serves simply to encourage the abuse of the libel > > law in the UK. > ... > > Andrew-- > > Hi. You mean here? > > http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/05/when_is_a_cult_not_a_cult.html#comments > > My impression is that he's being more than fair, and carefully > telling posters how to skirt the libel laws.
No, he's not. He's several times repeated the falsehood that truth is not a defence under UK libel law (and it is, as "justification", and there's also an associated "fair comment" defence), and by the standard for protecting against libellous posts I've seen applied on a hundred other blogs and boards - including ones where I applied the standard - he's ran straight past them to "censorship". Who the censorship is in favour of makes this, in my eyes and because of my personal experiences, seem especially egregious but I feel the point stands regardless. AndrewC _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
