h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dear Otto,

I had already made the right decission (to ask for a total withdrawal of my entry), even though I had not at that time read your very elaborate explanation of why real freedom of speech does not exist, and then also realised, why it could not.
I guess you must be right in most of what you are saying, but then again, I am sure there must be a flaw somewhere, which I am probably not bright enough(at the moment)to see.

Best regards,
Mikael

Hi Mikael,

Thanks for your message. I'm not really arguing that freedom of speech doesn't (or shouldn't) exist, but that it's not unconditional or absolute.

As regards a flaw - well, I'm only arguing for a very limited conclusion, that arguments about rights are not straightforward, and don't really apply around here. The way around this is to show that your article would fit with the social meaning of the site, or to find a way to show that the BBC are being over-cautious in defending what their own interests.

I didn't see your article - it had gone before I got there. Which is a shame, because issues of criminal justice are something I'm very interested in.

TTFN

Otto

Dear Otto,

Could you please help me how I can remove my space totally from h2g2?

Kind Regards,
Mikael

Hi Mikael,

Do you want to delete your guide entry? You can do that by editing it, and then if you scroll down the screen, you should see a "delete" button somewhere (depending on what skin you're in). This will delete the entry.

If you're asking about how to delete your personal space, the brief answer is that you can't. You can edit it to remove all of the content, and unsubscribe from the conversations, so it will look pretty much completely blank.

I think it would be a shame if you did that, though. What exactly was the problem with your entry? As I say, I missed it first time around. From what I've read, I'm sure that there's a way to say what you want to say in a way that the mods will accept (that sentence should be taken out and shot...).

TTFN


Otto

Dear Otto,

Thanks for your concern.
I have changed my mind and do no longer want to remove my hidden entry.

Since I have agreed with Jimster and Two bit Trigger Pumping Moron not to touch this subject until a fair trial is in progress,I will not discuss the subject further.

However if you have the clout, I believe you have, feel free to take it up with them.
If they say OK, I have no problem in forwarding to you what was finally forwarded to me.

I hope you understand
Kind Regards,
Mikael

Hi Mikael,

I have no clout round here at all! The only people who do are the "italics", who are employed by the BBC to run this site - you can tell who they are because their names are in italics - Jimster and Mina are italics, and there's a few more as well. Sorry if you already knew that.

I can imagine why they're jumpy about prejudicing a fair trial. It seems odd, but because they're part of the BBC, they have to be really careful. I'm not sure where you're from, but it's a really hot issue in the UK at the moment.

TTFN

Otto

Hi Otto,

Sorry for any confusion, as I said, I can not discuss or forward my entry to you. But I think it is okay quote the following two postings by Jimster from the Peer Review to you:

"

This is the Conversation Forum for Article Pending Moderation


Subject: A808436 - Innocent until proven guilty?
Posted 4 Days Ago by Jimster
This is a reply to this Posting Posting 22


The entry, while discussing human rights issues, also focused on the recent child murders in Soham, England, and it is for this reason that the entry was hidden, pending moderation. Our lawyers have reminded us that Contempt of Court legislation means that once judicial proceedings are set in motion it is illegal to publish discussions of the case or any evidence that might be brought up without being seen to prejudice the case in hand. This, naturally, applies to h2g2.

This has precedent in English law. A newspaper was fined recently for publishing stories about a case that later collapsed due to allegations that the media interest had prevented the accused from receiving a fair trial.

It is unfortunate that the original email to Mikael went astray, which we're looking into, but these are the reasons why this entry has been hidden.

regards,

Jimster
"

and

"

Subject: A808436 - Innocent until proven guilty?
Posted 3 Days Ago by Jimster
This is a reply to this Posting Posting 35


Actually, Mikael, what I said was that your entry will remain hidden because of that particular issue at this time. There is no indication how long the case will continue; you could find your entry hidden for as long as a year or more. However, The fact that it is more a question than an actual entry suitable for Peer Review means that it would not be accepted in its present form anyway. As I've already said, the best place to start a discussion on an issue is at the h2g2 Speaker's Corner.

As Sir Bossel noted, the entry will remain hidden until you yourself have rewritten it to remove all references to that specific case. Once you've done that, you're free to unhide it. From there, if you still want an entry on this topic to go into the Edited Guide, I'd suggest you rewrite it according to the h2g2 writing guidelines.

What I would also suggest is you instead focus on the central point in your entry - the Declaration of Human Rights, which I think is a fascinating topic on its own. If you write an entry that is balanced and structured to build to a conclusion, instead of just asking the question 'Is this right?', it could conceivably make a superb addition to the Edited Guide.

Regards,

Jimster

"

I hope this explains the situation.
Kind Regards,
Mikael

it isn't really surprising that the bbc are jumpy about preducing a fair trial.

having said that the situation is even worse in the usa, as once the papers have been submitted to start the prosecution it is illegal to publish anything at all about the case. (this got the boomtowm rats in trouble for their song "I don't like mondays", as they had not been told that the case had moved from public interest to prosecution when they released it).

most countries have a similar rule.

I did not say I have a problem with the BBC moderation, provided a fair trial will happen, which we will have to wait and see if it happens.

Best Regards,
Mikael

Hi Mikael,

I'm glad you're at least satisfied with the decision - I thought you might be leaving us!

Xyroth - what's wrong the "I don't like mondays" from a legal point of view? I didn't realise it refered to a legal case. "Tell me why...."

Otto

I don't like mondays is a song about one of the many incidents of some kid getting hold of a gun and shooting at people in the schoolyard.

unusually, the shooter survived, and when the boomtown rats released the song, the papers had just been put in to prosecute the shooter.

unfortunately this had not hit the press, so the record went out to the shops and within a couple of days the case was pre-judice (before the courts) and thus the record got banned. It cost them a lot of money through no fault of their own, but they were able to use the fact that it was banned in america to help sell more copies in the rest of the world, recovering some of their losses.

that about covers it.

a google search came up with more details off this link
http://www.irvingplaza.com/band/band_bobgeldof.html