I have just found out that my life is to be broadcast on the web....

[Sean]

You don't HAVE any options. Do you have any idea as to the total volume of public commentary around the subject of what a "bitch/bastard my EX- was"? If any of this vitriol had transgressed into the realm of slander, do you not think that there would be countless examples of successful civil judgments?

Simply expressing his opinion about what a lousy wife and mother you were does not constitute unlawful conduct. Neither is it unlawful just because some of it may be based on lies or arguable "facts" as to what is or isn't true. Aggrieved domestic partners have been known to greatly exaggerate the alleged wrongs done to them. Courts need to see a lot more than just the standard pissing match between hot heads before they will interfere with someone's right to free speech or punish them for something they already said.

Actually, libel over the internet is actionable in UK law. Not sure about Oz.

 

[OjosMojo]

Her ex resides in - and I assume posts from - the States.

Our poor victim hood laws haven't reached the tyrannically draconian, anti-free speech state you limeys and your ex-cons are now boot-heeled under - yet.

 

[Sean]

Her ex resides in - and I assume posts from - the States.

Our poor victim hood laws haven't reached the tyrannically draconian, anti-free speech state you limeys and your ex-cons are now boot-heeled under - yet.

Libel has never been protected speech, Eeyore.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

IIR she said New York, not that I care enough to look it up.

 

[butters]

the difference between your slating of him here and his 'revelations/whinging' there is anonymity. one's ok, the other's not.

but

if you get upset about it, rise to his bait, he wins.

he's never going to get the kind of exposure that can hurt you, WQ; and what does it matter if complete strangers believe his shit? i know it's a matter of principle, but those who matter will know it for the lies it is. monitor it if you must, but it'll eat away at you.far best to completely ignore his attempts to still infect your life.

 

[pointless]

Libel has never been protected speech, Eeyore.

yes, but our countries have very different definitions of libel. like here, you can't be sued just because someone told the truth about you where as in your country you can be.

which is fucking weird.

 

[Sean]

yes, but our countries have very different definitions of libel. like here, you can't be sued just because someone told the truth about you where as in your country you can be.

which is fucking weird.

Nope, the truth is always a defence against libel charges. It's why Oscar Wilde ended up in prison.

 

[pointless]

Nope, the truth is always a defence against libel charges. It's why Oscar Wilde ended up in prison.

your country has fucked up libel laws, son. just accept it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

 

[Sean]

your country has fucked up libel laws, son. just accept it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

Ah, yeah, we have a lower standard for "harm" in defamation cases, that's certainly true.

 

[OjosMojo]

Ah, yeah, we have a lower standard for "harm" in defamation cases, that's certainly true.

Heh.

Tell us more about - overall - your limey government's much, much lower standard for free speech in general. While you're at it, share with us your tyrant government's draconian internet laws that you're totally subjected to with every word you post here.

Deeming yourself an expert critic of America, you can do that - can't you?

 

[Sean]

Heh.

Tell us more about - overall - your limey government's much, much lower standard for free speech in general. While you're at it, share with us your tyrant government's draconian internet laws that you're totally subjected to with every word you post here.

Deeming yourself an expert critic of America, you can do that - can't you?

Which draconian laws would that be, Eeyore?

 

[warrior queen]

Uummm.....most of what he's written so far is false!
He hasn't yet written about me in detail, but the bits that are there are untrue.

And that's my problem.

What I have said on here has all been completely accurate - and if it had to be proved I have people, documents, etc to back everything.
But he is making totally outrageous and false statements, and it looks like he will continue that way when he writes about me personally.

If he were going to write a truthfull account, I would have no issue with that.

 

[pointless]

yes, yes, yes. your one sided story is clearly the most truthful and we know this because you told us it was and since you are completely free of any bias what more could we possibly need?

 

[pointless]

Which draconian laws would that be, Eeyore?

just show him this. it'll break his little heart.

 

[OjosMojo]

Which draconian laws would that be, Eeyore?

Disingenuous deflection so naturally suits you.

You claim a law degree on the internet, right? Why don't you just give us your expert summation, then, on the key draconian differences between free speech in the USSA compared - at the present time - to limeyland?

Perhaps you may start here:

The internet activity of everyone in Britain will have to be stored for a year by service providers, under new surveillance law plans.

Police and intelligence officers will be able to see the names of sites people have visited without a warrant, Home Secretary Theresa May said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34715872

There is absolutely no patriotic excuse for the Orwellian surveillance measures the USSA's NSA conducts on virtually everyone's info in the world it can get a hold of; alas, that crime does nothing to diminish the fact that in actual free speech circles the world over, the GCHQ is fully recognized as the West's superior tyrant.

But, you just go ahead and keep being the lemming your really are on the internet, as you naturally need to just root, root simply because of your home team. That bare bias, of course, is what makes you the bigot you truly are.

 

[warrior queen]

Whatever..... If he writes truthfully, then I'm ok with it.
But so far, all the stuff he's put on there, I can prove it's only about 10% true and 90% not.

 

[Sean]

Disingenuous deflection so naturally suits you.

You claim a law degree on the internet, right? Why don't you just give us your expert summation, then, on the key draconian differences between free speech in the USSA compared - at the present time - to limeyland?

Perhaps you may start here:



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34715872

There is absolutely no patriotic excuse for the Orwellian surveillance measures the USSA's NSA conducts on virtually everyone's info in the world it can get a hold of; alas, that crime does nothing to diminish the fact that in actual free speech circles the world over, the GCHQ is fully recognized as the West's superior tyrant.

But, you just go ahead and keep being the lemming your really are on the internet, as you naturally need to just root, root simply because of your home team. That bare bias, of course, is what makes you the bigot you truly are.

So, a law is, maybe, at some indefinite time in the future, going to be passed that may, or may not, require ISPs to keep records for 12 months.

How, exactly, is this an infringement of free speech?

Oh, by the way, should the Investigatory Powers Act become law, it will subject the police and security services to parliamentary and judicial oversight, unlike your own country where the NSA reads whatever the fuck it likes and no-one can do shit.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Libel has never been protected speech, Eeyore.

That's incorrect. Take every tabloid that has ever written anything untrue. Public figures get the shit end of the free speech stick.

That's a ridiculously uninformed comment.

 

[Sean]

That's incorrect. Take every tabloid that has ever written anything untrue. Public figures get the shit end of the free speech stick.

That's a ridiculously uninformed comment.

Just because suing is a pain in the arse and not worth the effort doesn't mean the law isn't there.

 

[pointless]

well, it isn't that big of a pain in the ass when you're rich. i think people mainly avoid suing tabloids because no one who matters really takes tabloids seriously. the only times they do get sued is when they go too far and take a shot that hits a bit too close to home.

 

[OjosMojo]

So, a law is, maybe, at some indefinite time in the future, going to be passed that may, or may not, require ISPs to keep records for 12 months.

How, exactly, is this an infringement of free speech?

Free speech only exists when there is no threat at all to its practice; infringement, obviously, occurs when any action(s) is instituted in any to monitor it - first of all - and/or then to subject it - in any way - to conditions.

Oh, by the way, should the Investigatory Powers Act become law, it will subject the police and security services to parliamentary and judicial oversight, unlike your own country where the NSA reads whatever the fuck it likes and no-one can do shit.

I've posted thousands of words on this Board regarding how draconian I consider the USSA, which naturally frees me from your 3rd grade homeboy game, let alone associating me in any way with your insatiable need to be wholly disingenuous while playing it.

 

[Debbie]

Whatever..... If he writes truthfully, then I'm ok with it.
But so far, all the stuff he's put on there, I can prove it's only about 10% true and 90% not.

wq, he's doing it to get to you and that's exactly what he seems to be doing.

Don't let him win.

My ex did some despicable things to try and punish me for leaving him and Im not being sanctimonious or holier than thou but I was damned if I was going to let him have a party at my expense. I got on with my life and am happy despite his petty nasty antics that he thought would cause emotional harm.

 

[Sean]

just show him this. it'll break his little heart.

LMAO.

The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong,
Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada,
Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. The
United States is ranked in 20th place. Other countries rank
as follows: Germany (12), Chile (18), Japan (28), France (33),
Singapore (43), South Africa (70), India (75), Brazil (82),
Russia (111), China (132), Nigeria (139), Saudi Arabia (141),
Venezuela (144), Zimbabwe (149), and Iran (152).
Out of 17 regions, the highest levels of freedom are in
Northern Europe, North America (Canada and the United
States), and Western Europe. The lowest levels are in the
Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and
South Asia. Women’s freedoms, as measured by five relevant
indicators in the index, are most protected in Europe
and North America and least protected in South Asia, SubSaharan
Africa, and the Middle East and North Africa

 

[snugglestruggle]

Until he mentions you specifically by name, I doubt a lawyer could do anything. The longer he posts stuff the better chance of him hanging himself, if I was you I'd egg him on in some nonchalant way lol.

 

[Sean]

Free speech only exists when there is no threat at all to its practice; infringement, obviously, occurs when any action(s) is instituted in any to monitor it - first of all - and/or then to subject it - in any way - to conditions.

.

This is just arrant nonsense.