Thursday, 20 September 2007
Blogging and Free Speech (updated)
Disturbing developments over at Bloggerheads, where Tim Ireland's blog is "off-air" - forced out of business thanks to the bullying of an Uzbek billionaire and his lawyers.
Alisher Usmanov recently bought shares in Arsenal. It's been alleged in several quarters that if they choose to dine with this guy, the Gunners should be supping with a very long spoon. The Guardian takes up the story:
Schillings, the lawyers acting for Usmanov, have been in touch with several independent Arsenal supporters' websites and blogs warning them to remove postings referring to allegations made against him by Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan.
Usmanov was jailed under the old Soviet regime but says that he was a political prisoner who was then freed and granted a full pardon once Mikhail Gorbachev came to power as president. Schillings have warned the websites that repetition of Murray's allegations were regarded as "false, indefensible and grossly defamatory".
It appears that m'learned friends' intervention has had the desired effect. Tim's webhost has caved in the face of a flurry of threatening letters from Schillings, and his blog has had the plug pulled, as has Craig Murray. Both of them had published comments about Usmanov which prompted him to reach for the phone to his lackeys at Schillings. Worse, and particularly stupidly, a whole network of sites hosted on the same server have also been taken down, among them Bob Piper and Boris Johnson, who were not involved in any way. Nut, sledgehammer, rearrange.
More from DavidT at Harry's Place:
Bloggers cannot operate if they are bullied by rich plaintiffs. Defamation law in the United Kingdom is both farcical and unfair, and is in desperate need of fundamental reform. Errors on blogs can easily be remedied: particularly where they permit open commenting (a libel risk in itself) which allows postings to be criticised, facts corrected, and arguments opposed. I know what it is like to be at the receiving end of a well funded threat of defamation proceedings, and it is no fun at all. It is outrageous that the law of defamation should be used to break bloggers: like butterflies upon wheels.
That's goddamn right. Freedom of speech is not a luxury but a basic minimum standard of any healthy liberal democracy. Blogs and bloggers are hardly the most important voices in the national conversation; if my blog got pulled I suspect the great British public would, after a suitable period of mourning, get on with their lives. But this ugly development demonstrates that blogs are vulnerable to big bullies with bigger sticks. We can't defend ourselves the way a magazine or newspaper can. There's no legal budget for us to dip into.
And let's be clear on this point; these blogs are down not because Usmanov has been libelled, but because he says he's been libelled, and has a room full of paid monkeys sitting at typewriters firing off theatening letters to that effect.
I don't give a shit about this character, or Arsenal FC (no offence to any Gooners out there); nor do I share all or even most of Tim Ireland or Craig Murray's politics. But that's far from the point. If you can be silenced for calling a businessman a crook, then you can be silenced for calling a politician a crook, too. Then it's everyone's problem.
This one will run and run. No need to watch this space; there'll be plenty of other bloggers stepping up on this one. Oh, and Arsenal fans; if you're not convinced yet, think what this guy is going to do to your webforums.
Justin is the go-to guy on this, in the absence of Bloggerheads itself. And there's more from Curious Hamster, Pickled Politics, Harry’s Place, Tim Worstall, Dizzy, Iain Dale, Ten Percent, Blairwatch, Davide Simonetti, Earthquake Cove, Turbulent Cleric, Mike Power, Jailhouse Lawyer, Suesam, Devil’s Kitchen, The Cartoonist, Falco, Casualty Monitor, Forever Expat, Arseblog, Drink-soaked Trots, Pitch Invasion, Wonko’s World, Roll A Monkey, Caroline Hunt, Westminster Wisdom, Chris K, Anorak, Mediawatchwatch, Norfolk Blogger, Chris Paul, Indymedia, Obsolete, Tom Watson, Cynical Chatter, Reactionary Snob, Matthew Sinclair, The Select Society, Liberal England, Davblog, Peter Gasston Pitch Perfect, Adelaide Green Porridge Cafe, Lunartalks, Tygerland, The Crossed Pond, Our Kingdom, Big Daddy Merk, Daily Mail Watch, Graeme’s, Random Thoughts, Nosemonkey, Matt Wardman, Politics in the Zeros, Love and Garbage, The Huntsman, Conservative Party Reptile, Ellee Seymour, Sabretache, Not A Sheep, Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion, The People’s Republic Of Newport, Life, the Universe & Everything, Arsenal Transfer Rumour Mill, The Green Ribbon, Blood & Treasure, The Last Ditch, Areopagitica, Football in Finland, An Englishman’s Castle, Freeborn John, Eursoc, The Back Four, Rebellion Suck!, Ministry of Truth, ModernityBlog, Beau Bo D’Or, Scots and Independent, The Splund, Bill Cameron, Podnosh, Dodgeblogium, Moving Target, Serious Golmal, Goonerholic, The Spine, Zero Point Nine, Lenin’s Tomb, The Durruti Column, The Bristol Blogger, ArseNews, David Lindsay, Quaequam Blog!, On A Quiet Day…, Kathz’s Blog, England Expects, Theo Spark, Duncan Borrowman, Senn’s Blog, Katykins, and my own contribution at Jewcy. Phew!
UPDATE: US sports blogger David Warner sums up Schillings' problem nicely:
It appears Schillings has fallen victim to something our pals at Techdirt like to call "The Streisand Effect." Back in 2003, Barbra Streisand sued a photographer in an attempt to remove an aerial photo of her California home from the Internet, despite the fact that the photo was part of a publicly funded coastline erosion study and wasn't even labeled as her home. As a result, photos of her house were published all over the web within days.
[...] for all their claims that Murray is libeling their client, Schillings has not actually sued Murray for libel. They have told anyone who will listen that Murray's book, Murder at Samarkand, is defamatory against Usmanov, but it's been out for more than a year, and they have never taken any legal action against Murray. Instead, they seem more focused on getting any mention of Murray and his allegations against Usmanov removed from the web -- and as the Streisand Effect teaches us, that's pretty much impossible.
If Murray's goal was to make Usmanov look like a thug, then mission accomplished.
2nd UPDATE: Tom Watson MP writes:
This guy Usmanov is some unifying oligarch. He’s got Iain Dale writing in support of Tim [Ireland] and Craig Murray.
For those mercifully unaware of blogging politics, this is the equivalent of Christopher Hitchens leading the march on Parliament Sqaure to get Galloway's Commons suspension lifted. To unify these two extremes is a rare achievement indeed.
I knew nothing about Alisher Usmanov this time yesterday; a rich businessman trying to increase his stake in Arsenal. So what? They're ten a penny, if you'll pardon the phrase.
Today, I know that he's a [snip! - Mr E lawyers], a fat [snip! - Mr E lawyers] who was imprisoned for [snip! - Mr E lawyers] and even, it is whispered among his fellow Uzbeks, the perpetrator of a particularly vicious [snip! - Mr E lawyers]. And this is all directly because of his decision to legal up, and his lawyers' decision to bring out the elephant guns.
Letters are being written to the FA and the original allegations are spreading through the internet like wildfire. Google his name and see what I mean. Tomorrow it'll probably be in some of the papers. The stench around this guy's name continues to grow. Hundreds of Arsenal fans who yesterday only knew about his deep pockets are now going to start wondering if this is a fit and proper person to involve himself in the running of their club. (UPDATE: Case in point)
Tom notes that the Schillings site has a page boasting a case study in how to neutralise "the internet attacker". Oops.
3rd UPDATE: The fat man cometh:
Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov has said he intends to buy a "blocking stake" in football club Arsenal.
Red and White Holdings Ltd, which is co-owned by Mr Usmanov and business partner Farhad Moshiri, currently holds a 21% stake in the London club. Russian media reported that Mr Usmanov now aims to up his share in Arsenal to at least 25% plus one share. Should Mr Usmanov reach a 29.9% stake holding in the club then he would be obliged to make a takeover offer.
"I want to be in a position that will allow me a blocking stake and will then wait for it to go up in value," Interfax news agency quoted Usmanov as saying in a live broadcast on Ekho Moskvy radio station.
Labels: Alisher Usmanov, Civil liberties, Navel-gazing, Scumbags, Sport
Comments:
<< Home
Well, Mr E since they say plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, may I just say "Goal own - rearrange"
Sorry, but I have belatedly realised the whole story is merely a variation on the splendid Arthur Lowe line "Don't tell him, Pike!"
Mr E,
I have a totally minor quibble (which serves only to amplify the point I think you're making).
See here.
Most interestingly, the Schillings advice page you reference rather proves my point - taking the server down is entirely disproportionate and would not happen in the MSM. This is muzzling, not action against libel.
I have a totally minor quibble (which serves only to amplify the point I think you're making).
See here.
Most interestingly, the Schillings advice page you reference rather proves my point - taking the server down is entirely disproportionate and would not happen in the MSM. This is muzzling, not action against libel.
If the stake reaches 30% in a football club the owner/controlling party becomes suject to the "fit and proper" test.
"If you can be silenced for calling a businessman a crook, then you can be silenced for calling a politician a crook, too. Then it's everyone's problem."
Sorry, no! It's not *anyone's* problem because, thank goodness, it is unlawful to call *anyone* (that means me, you and Mr. Usmanov) a crook unless you have *sufficient evidence* to prove it in a court. If you haven't, you deserve everything that hits you. If you lack the means to support a court action, then again, you deserve it because you should have kept your mouth, or keyboard, shut.
Personally, I am sick and tired of bloggers who think they are a law unto themselves and that somehow Blogdom is not part of the real world. Well, Mr. Usmanov's lawyers just gave everyone an overdue reality check!
Sorry, no! It's not *anyone's* problem because, thank goodness, it is unlawful to call *anyone* (that means me, you and Mr. Usmanov) a crook unless you have *sufficient evidence* to prove it in a court. If you haven't, you deserve everything that hits you. If you lack the means to support a court action, then again, you deserve it because you should have kept your mouth, or keyboard, shut.
Personally, I am sick and tired of bloggers who think they are a law unto themselves and that somehow Blogdom is not part of the real world. Well, Mr. Usmanov's lawyers just gave everyone an overdue reality check!
This last comment is bollocks. It has nothing to do with evidence or libel. It has everything to do with bringing pressure to silence and D Duff cannot skew it round to make it appear anything else than what it is.
The attempt to take the high moral ground fails.
The attempt to take the high moral ground fails.
'Lord High'n'Mighty' must be suffering from attention disorder. If you have proof that some one is guilty of wrong-doing then there are ways to publish it and get your day in court *without* involving innocent third parties who have no interest or knowledge of the dispute concerned. Perhaps his Lordship could explain to me why those third parties (ISPs) should suffer for the stupidity of sundry dim bloggers?
Let Murray 'et al' publish their own leaflets and distribute them outside the house or office of their target. No one gets hurt or silenced unless, of course, they lack the proof to back it up in court. If, and I do stress 'if', that is the result, well, they deserve to lose everything they own. If, on the other hand, no action is taken against them, then they have made their point, without damaging others and the rest of us can draw our own conclusions.
Let Murray 'et al' publish their own leaflets and distribute them outside the house or office of their target. No one gets hurt or silenced unless, of course, they lack the proof to back it up in court. If, and I do stress 'if', that is the result, well, they deserve to lose everything they own. If, on the other hand, no action is taken against them, then they have made their point, without damaging others and the rest of us can draw our own conclusions.
Sorry, Duff is an idiot. The problem here, obviously, is that a complaint that has no merit whatsoever can result in the withdrawal of content if sufficient pressure is brought to bear on upstream providers, like webhosts or bandwidth suppliers.
There's no question at all of bloggers seeking special privileges. This is a case of a man, Murray, who publishes under his own name in a variety of media being censored in one by indirect legal threats to third parties with no stake in the matter and therefore no reason to stand firm, and not by legal action.
There's no question at all of bloggers seeking special privileges. This is a case of a man, Murray, who publishes under his own name in a variety of media being censored in one by indirect legal threats to third parties with no stake in the matter and therefore no reason to stand firm, and not by legal action.
David- as far as I'm aware Craig Murray actually has invited legal action against himself. He even I think posted the law firm hsi address so they could serve a writ- he wants his day in court. But Usmanov is threatening the ISP instead as a way to get round this and they have taken down the content.
Hmmm, Peter Risdon! I wonder if that is the Peter Risden of whom I wrote once that he was so wet you could shoot snipe off him? The man who insisted that the Danish cartoons were *not* to be displayed at (of all things!) the 'Freedom of Expression' demo "because to be surrounded by these cartoons, now, in the present context when *the BNP are using them as a rallying point*, would be intolerable" (his emphasis). I added, "I don't know whether to laugh or weep or just throw my bloody monitor out the window! This is exactly the sort of wooly-minded, wet, pathetic, useless hand-wringing, political parsing that one would expect from the 'Revd. J. C. Flannel'." And this is the man who calls me an idiot!
Anyway, Murray, apparently as dim as one would expect him to be as a former functionary of the 'Ministry for Foreigners', chose a method of publishing his contentious views that brought down trouble and strife on an innocent third party. I may indeed, as Mr. Risdon asserts, be an idiot but I would have been able to work that one out beforehand. I wonder if Murray ever attempted to get 'The Groan' to publish his opinions, and if so, what their legal department told him?
Anyway, I have suggested a simple and very direct means by which he can publicise his views. Let us see if he will take it up; in that way we would then be able to see if Mr. Usmanov takes up his options.
Anyway, Murray, apparently as dim as one would expect him to be as a former functionary of the 'Ministry for Foreigners', chose a method of publishing his contentious views that brought down trouble and strife on an innocent third party. I may indeed, as Mr. Risdon asserts, be an idiot but I would have been able to work that one out beforehand. I wonder if Murray ever attempted to get 'The Groan' to publish his opinions, and if so, what their legal department told him?
Anyway, I have suggested a simple and very direct means by which he can publicise his views. Let us see if he will take it up; in that way we would then be able to see if Mr. Usmanov takes up his options.
Sorry, have been rather unwell over the weekend. Flowers to the usual address.
No-one is suggesting that bloggers should not be subject to the libel laws - though I accept that we often behave as if we're not.
However, David, I believe you're getting it totally arse-over-tit when you say that we don't have the right to say what we like unless we can prove it. That is not true.
I have the right to say whatever I like. If someone else feels he is being libelled, he can ask me to desist. If I refuse, he can go through a legal process and only at that point am I required to prove the truth of what I said.
Ten blogs have been taken down, not because of any legal process, but because a lawyer has been firing off threatening letters. That's not libel; that's muscle.
Imagine the Independent made an allegation against the McCanns. The McCanns go to their lawyers. And the next day, the Independent does not appear - but nor do the Telegraph or Times, because (for the sake of the example) they happen to share the same printing and distibution facility. The lawyers' letters have had the desired effect; the presses have all been shut down - without appeal or redress - and a number of newspapers have to up sticks and find some other way of getting published. That's what's happened here - just on a much, much smaller scale.
Craig Murray has the right to say what he likes until someone gets a court judgement requiring him to shut up. And so do the rest of us.
No-one is suggesting that bloggers should not be subject to the libel laws - though I accept that we often behave as if we're not.
However, David, I believe you're getting it totally arse-over-tit when you say that we don't have the right to say what we like unless we can prove it. That is not true.
I have the right to say whatever I like. If someone else feels he is being libelled, he can ask me to desist. If I refuse, he can go through a legal process and only at that point am I required to prove the truth of what I said.
Ten blogs have been taken down, not because of any legal process, but because a lawyer has been firing off threatening letters. That's not libel; that's muscle.
Imagine the Independent made an allegation against the McCanns. The McCanns go to their lawyers. And the next day, the Independent does not appear - but nor do the Telegraph or Times, because (for the sake of the example) they happen to share the same printing and distibution facility. The lawyers' letters have had the desired effect; the presses have all been shut down - without appeal or redress - and a number of newspapers have to up sticks and find some other way of getting published. That's what's happened here - just on a much, much smaller scale.
Craig Murray has the right to say what he likes until someone gets a court judgement requiring him to shut up. And so do the rest of us.
Peter Risdon and Mr. E saved me the job - thank you, sirs. I was going to really tear into the moronic Duff with a seven paragraph analysis of each of his comments.
This is a clear and relatively unadorned case of legal duress. Simple as that.
This is a clear and relatively unadorned case of legal duress. Simple as that.
I hope you're feeling better, Mr. 'E', and that my witterings will not indispose you further!
You write: "Craig Murray has the right to say what he likes until someone gets a court judgement requiring him to shut up. And so do the rest of us."
Sorry, but we do not and that is a very good thing because otherwise people would have the right to defame anyone they care to, including those too poor or ill-educated to defend themselves. The vicious, wicked campaign waged by bloggers against the McCanns is a case in point.
You used the newspaper analogy but forgot to mention that in such a case the newspaper is sued along with the writer which is why I wondered if 'The Groan' had ever been approached by Murray and if so, what they had to say on the subject.
The effects of the current law on internet sites is well known and I still maintain that Murray was as idiotic as Risdon reckons I am in publishing his accusations. If an idiot like me can, in less than a minute, think of a way of publicisng them without injuring third parties, then surely our distinguished ex-Ambassador could have done the same, could he not?
Perhaps not, he was ex-FO, don'cha know!
You write: "Craig Murray has the right to say what he likes until someone gets a court judgement requiring him to shut up. And so do the rest of us."
Sorry, but we do not and that is a very good thing because otherwise people would have the right to defame anyone they care to, including those too poor or ill-educated to defend themselves. The vicious, wicked campaign waged by bloggers against the McCanns is a case in point.
You used the newspaper analogy but forgot to mention that in such a case the newspaper is sued along with the writer which is why I wondered if 'The Groan' had ever been approached by Murray and if so, what they had to say on the subject.
The effects of the current law on internet sites is well known and I still maintain that Murray was as idiotic as Risdon reckons I am in publishing his accusations. If an idiot like me can, in less than a minute, think of a way of publicisng them without injuring third parties, then surely our distinguished ex-Ambassador could have done the same, could he not?
Perhaps not, he was ex-FO, don'cha know!
Is David Duff REALLY supporting this man who has not only taken down Craig Murray's site and writings elsewhere but also other dangerous maniacs like Boris Johnson and Bob Piper.
David Duff should stop spiltting hairs and join in condemning this bastard (not to Schillings: vernacular sense, AFAIK).
David Duff should stop spiltting hairs and join in condemning this bastard (not to Schillings: vernacular sense, AFAIK).
"Is David Duff REALLY supporting this man"
Yes he is, just as I would support you, Chris Paul, if some blogger accused you of paedophilia, or sleeping with your mother, or pinching sweeties from Woolworths, without producing proof that would stand up in a court. And just as I would support the action of an innocent third party, an ISP, in taking down the site of anyone making such an accusation against you. If such an accuser cannot get a newspaper to print his accusations they are, presumably, of doubtful provenence.
And by the way, I do not know Mr. Asmanov any better than I know you.
Yes he is, just as I would support you, Chris Paul, if some blogger accused you of paedophilia, or sleeping with your mother, or pinching sweeties from Woolworths, without producing proof that would stand up in a court. And just as I would support the action of an innocent third party, an ISP, in taking down the site of anyone making such an accusation against you. If such an accuser cannot get a newspaper to print his accusations they are, presumably, of doubtful provenence.
And by the way, I do not know Mr. Asmanov any better than I know you.
D. Duff is wrong. But I'm not going to suggest shutting down his blog or censoring his comments.
That he defends the censure of speech on *heresay* is pure stupidity. His argument implies that as long as you've got money (a lot) to go to court with some facts then you'll be fine. That the complaint may have no merit and *still* result in the censure of speech is what concerns intelligent people.
D. Duff's standpoint is the standpoint of a fool, and is wrong on many levels.
Carry on Mr. Murray and ignore the imbeciles.
That he defends the censure of speech on *heresay* is pure stupidity. His argument implies that as long as you've got money (a lot) to go to court with some facts then you'll be fine. That the complaint may have no merit and *still* result in the censure of speech is what concerns intelligent people.
D. Duff's standpoint is the standpoint of a fool, and is wrong on many levels.
Carry on Mr. Murray and ignore the imbeciles.
D. Duff wrote "Yes he is, just as I would support you, Chris Paul, if some blogger accused you of paedophilia, or sleeping with your mother, or pinching sweeties from Woolworths, without producing proof that would stand up in a court."
Oh... by the way: I accuse you of sleeping with shaved teenage goats while flying through space after stealing the condoms (used in said act) from woolworths.
See you in court.
Oh... by the way: I accuse you of sleeping with shaved teenage goats while flying through space after stealing the condoms (used in said act) from woolworths.
See you in court.
When you are an IP address on page, it is easy to be erased. It is cleaner and attracts less publicity than rounding up fanzines and burning them in the street.....
David Duff said...
Hmmm, Peter Risdon! I wonder if that is the Peter Risden of whom I wrote once that he was so wet you could shoot snipe off him?
The same, but I'm not one to bear a grudge, especially when I thought the earlier comment was quite funny (and insufficiently thoughtful to merit any kind of response).
No, this was a completely independent, stand-alone piece of idiocy, unrelated to any idiocies of the past.
Hmmm, Peter Risdon! I wonder if that is the Peter Risden of whom I wrote once that he was so wet you could shoot snipe off him?
The same, but I'm not one to bear a grudge, especially when I thought the earlier comment was quite funny (and insufficiently thoughtful to merit any kind of response).
No, this was a completely independent, stand-alone piece of idiocy, unrelated to any idiocies of the past.
Is this the same Peter Risdon who is the notorious supergrass and police informer?
See http://nobodylikesagrass.com
See http://nobodylikesagrass.com
情趣用品,情趣,情色,成人,A片,自拍,情趣用品,情趣,色情,成人影片,色情影片,免費A片,情趣用品,情趣,成人網站,A片下載,日本AV,做愛,情趣用品,情趣,美女交友,A片,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,情趣用品,情趣,色情聊天室,聊天室,AV,成人電影,A片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣商品,情趣,情趣情色,A片,AIO,AV,日本AV,色情A片,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,A片下載,情色A片,哈啦聊天室,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,色情聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,免費視訊聊天,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,成人,成人影片,成人光碟,成人影城,自拍情趣用品,情趣商品,情趣,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,情色A片,情色小說,色情,情色視訊,寄情築園小遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,AIO,色情遊戲,情色交友,嘟嘟情人色網,情色論壇,色情影片,微風成人,成人網站,成人光碟,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人影城,18成人,成人聊天室,聊天室,成人電影,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人影片,成人文章,微風成人區,成人交友,走光,巨乳,同志色教館,美女寫真,美女,A片
Post a Comment
<< Home
