freedom of speech.


Status
Not open for further replies.
R

redrobbo63

Guest
I have just had a thread removed because it was asking why certain legal terms are not allowed to be discussed on here.

surely it is ok to discuss whether the legal term is right or wrong .. The discussion about the procedures would only be illegal if it was talking about people who have used these procedure in a way that was identifying them .

The internet used to be a vehicle for free speech .. It is now being censored horribly..by fear of something that is not going to happen..Everybody is so afraid of the law they forget that it is there to protect our rights not subdue them.
 
I have just had a thread removed because it was asking why certain legal terms are not allowed to be discussed on here.

surely it is ok to discuss whether the legal term is right or wrong .. The discussion about the procedures would only be illegal if it was talking about people who have used these procedure in a way that was identifying them .

The internet used to be a vehicle for free speech .. It is now being censored horribly..by fear of something that is not going to happen..Everybody is so afraid of the law they forget that it is there to protect our rights not subdue them.

Why not query the point with the admin directly? They won't debate but might give an answer.
 
Roger's name is over the door here.

As landlords go, he is benign and cuts us all a lot of slack. But if he (or his moderators) aren't comfortable with something, it goes.

Because Roger's name is over the door, it is him that the lawyers call first.

Accept the stewardship of Roger and his moderators, or go somewhere else. it is that simple.
 
The internet used to be a vehicle for free speech .. It is now being censored horribly..by fear of something that is not going to happen..Everybody is so afraid of the law they forget that it is there to protect our rights not subdue them.

Set up your own website, and allow everyone who wants to post on it unrestricted freedom of speech, see how far you get.
 
Last edited:
Roger's name is over the door here.

As landlords go, he is benign and cuts us all a lot of slack. But if he (or his moderators) aren't comfortable with something, it goes.

Because Roger's name is over the door, it is him that the lawyers call first.

Accept the stewardship of Roger and his moderators, or go somewhere else. it is that simple.
:roll:
Do I suspect a left wing conspiracy with this statement knowing your political proclivities and Leicester Mackem's disappearance for days then returning when those who have hammered him have been banned??:confused:

Hmmmmm
 
Roger's name is over the door here.

As landlords go, he is benign and cuts us all a lot of slack. But if he (or his moderators) aren't comfortable with something, it goes.

Because Roger's name is over the door, it is him that the lawyers call first.

Accept the stewardship of Roger and his moderators, or go somewhere else. it is that simple.
:roll:
Do I suspect a left wing conspiracy with this statement knowing your political proclivities and Leicester Mackem's disappearance for days then returning when those who have hammered him have been banned??:confused:

Hmmmmm ;)
 
I have just had a thread removed because it was asking why certain legal terms are not allowed to be discussed on here.

surely it is ok to discuss whether the legal term is right or wrong .. The discussion about the procedures would only be illegal if it was talking about people who have used these procedure in a way that was identifying them .

The internet used to be a vehicle for free speech .. It is now being censored horribly..by fear of something that is not going to happen..Everybody is so afraid of the law they forget that it is there to protect our rights not subdue them.

you can say what you like somewhere I'm sure, but I wouldn't let you break the law in my house so I don't see why Roger should risk it with people on his website. It's quite simple.

I reckon the trouble he could get into would wreck his day more than having a thread on a message board deleted has ruined yours.

Oh, and at no point in history has complete freedom of speech existed, and rightly so.
 
Last edited:
you can say what you like somewhere I'm sure, but I wouldn't let you break the law in my house so I don't see why Roger should risk it with people on his website. It's quite simple.

I reckon the trouble he could get into would wreck his day more than having a thread on a message board deleted has ruined yours.

Oh, and at no point in history has complete freedom of speech existed, and rightly so.

No but what the OP is saying is this..

Imagine I had done something, and then took out a super-injunction. For you lot to come on here and start saying 'Did you hear about Chris Hunt snorting coke of Miss World's thighs before driving that ferrarri through an ice cream factory?' would be illegal. To discuss or speculate on what I did... wrong.

To discuss whether the idea of a super injunction is correct or not, without mentioning or speculating on a case, is not.
 
No but what the OP is saying is this..

Imagine I had done something, and then took out a super-injunction. For you lot to come on here and start saying 'Did you hear about Chris Hunt snorting coke of Miss World's thighs before driving that ferrarri through an ice cream factory?' would be illegal. To discuss or speculate on what I did... wrong.

To discuss whether the idea of a super injunction is correct or not, without mentioning or speculating on a case, is not.

Well said :)
 
No but what the OP is saying is this..

Imagine I had done something, and then took out a super-injunction. For you lot to come on here and start saying 'Did you hear about Chris Hunt snorting coke of Miss World's thighs before driving that ferrarri through an ice cream factory?' would be illegal. To discuss or speculate on what I did... wrong.

To discuss whether the idea of a super injunction is correct or not, without mentioning or speculating on a case, is not.

You're right of course, but it's just like the Celtic and Rangers threads - the threads might start off "Celtic are 1-0 up" but will eventually end up with a post saying "Up the IRA, British murderers must die". A thread discussing Superinjunctions would end up being a thread speculating on recently acquired superinjunctions. If Roger doesn't want to risk that, well it's his house and that's his choice.

At the end of the day someone has had their thread deleted, boo hoo. The repercussions for Roger however are potentially a lot more serious. It might be unlikely that he would end up in trouble, but as I've said it's his site and he doesn't have to risk it if he doesn't want to.
 
No but what the OP is saying is this..

Imagine I had done something, and then took out a super-injunction. For you lot to come on here and start saying 'Did you hear about Chris Hunt snorting coke of Miss World's thighs before driving that ferrarri through an ice cream factory?' would be illegal. To discuss or speculate on what I did... wrong.

To discuss whether the idea of a super injunction is correct or not, without mentioning or speculating on a case, is not.

As i´m sure you can guess the thread would soon go into dodgy legal areas. The only way to stop that would be to have a Mod sitting on it looking at it constantly waiting for the inevitable libelous comment to delete. I´m sure they have better things to do. Accept it, i would rather not have the thread than not have the board.
 
Yesterday I googled 'premier league family man.'

The first 2 search results were from this site and were threads which had been pulled a few days ago. They were still in the search results and you could view the threads using the 'cached' link.

If threads were left until someone mentioned names it would be too late to be pulled as the thread would still show up somewhere. Might seem a bit paranoid, but probably the most sensible option.
 
Last edited:
you can say what you like somewhere I'm sure, but I wouldn't let you break the law in my house so I don't see why Roger should risk it with people on his website. It's quite simple.

I reckon the trouble he could get into would wreck his day more than having a thread on a message board deleted has ruined yours.

Oh, and at no point in history has complete freedom of speech existed, and rightly so.

Fair point.. but I think it is sad that people are so worried about being sued that they are afraid to express their views..I am sure that you are right about complete freedom of speech not existing but it doesnt make it right...It would be interesting to know whether a football discussion sight has ever been sued for liableous statements.. somehow i doubt it but one thing is always true in law and that is that you cannot liable somebody with the truth..
I think the newspapers should go to court to get these gagging orders stopped because they are being brought in but they should be far more responsible about making sure that what they print is actually true..

Also the gagging orders must only apply to certain organisations named within it because they must have to be given the details about what they are not allowed to print..
The gagging order cannot be applied to me or you or anybody else on the SMB because we have not been told that there is one.. If the fact that the gaggiong order exists is not told to you you cannot break the law by writing about the person involved..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top