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

Apparently, extracting the urine out of The Sun is now against the House Rules, I had a posting yikesed because I poked fun at said tabloid and the standard email I got told me I'd broken the house rules, god knows how.

It's a fine line between extracting the urine and libel

The Sun doesn't seem to worry about it

One mans urine is anothers libel

As the title says....

They have deep pockets, the BBC however is funded by we the public and seems to take a slightly overcautious approach to protecting us from ourselves. I'm not sure why as the law currently stands in the UK (as I understand it) the BBC could let us stick up whatever we wanted without any financial risk providing it responded promptly to any takedown notice it received.

So the BBC is frightened of being sued by The Sun? I'd laugh if it didn't smack of the truth

No, the BBC is frightened of YOU being sued by the Sun, as I said the BBC would have no liability as long as it responded promptly to any takedown notice it received (as I understand the law).

The BBC wouldn't care Diddly Squat if I got sued by The Sun, just as long as they didn't get dragged into it and I'm damn sure the Sun has better things to do than sue someone who implied that no-one actually reads The Sun, just look at the pictures (does anyone actually bother to read past Page 3?)

"does anyone actually bother to read past Page 3?"
erm... see http://happyfrood.livejournal.com/23594.html for your answer

I have never frlt inclined to read the paper, other people dont have to either do they its a choice thing

I can see I'm leaning against an open door with this, I put this journal up as a bit of light hearted fun, looks like I underestimated feelings, I'll not with any more attempts at humour.

It is fun others are getting a little serious

No it's not, no-one's laughed, mentioned Freddie Starr and Hamsters or Samantha Fox

I cant hep with that as I have not read the paper. But f you want a laugg there must be other things

All I know is that a computer glitch caused me to lose my link to Page 3 ... I was devastated for entire MINUTES !!!

Reef, from what I have seen, the representatives of the BBC on this particular site are very, VERY cautious of being seen to be responsible for anything marginally risky. It's the way they have been for quite a time, and I doubt that'll change any day soon.

*Bangs head on keyboard and delete's journal*

My last post wasn't aimed at you Nick

*offers up a cold-compress for the forehead*

Reefy, sorry to take this seriously, but have you looked at the House Rules? There's a link in there to the DNA rules on Defamation:

"BBC Defamation Policy

It is against the House Rules to post defamatory material to any BBC community site or messageboard. If you post content that we believe might be defamatory, we will remove it."

"What is Defamation?
(...)A statement about an individual or organisation is deemed to be defamatory if it harms their reputation by:

*Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
*Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;
*Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or
*Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation's office, profession or trade.(...)"


Personally, I don't think your Sun comment counts as defamation, because:

"Defences to Defamation
(...)2. Fair Comment - Opinion made honestly on a matter of public interest can also be used as a defence against defamation. The term 'fair comment' gives the impression that the comments have to be 'fair', but in fact, all that is required is that the opinion is honestly held. However, for the defence to succeed, it is essential that the statement was made without malice.

In law, malice means more than spite or ill will - it means any dishonest or improper motive. If you made a comment based on facts you knew to be untrue, or commented upon facts recklessly without caring whether they were true or not, or made a comment about someone simply to discredit them, then this would constitute malice, and you would not be able to claim 'fair comment' as your defence.(...)"

Still, I can see why they want to be careful:

"Who Can be Sued?

Both the publisher and the author of defamatory material can be sued for making defamatory statements. This means that both you as the author of the content, and the BBC as the publisher, can be sued for defamation."

Source: A656796

And to make up for my long and serious copy/paste:

I like hamsters