The Boy Who Cried Censorship

I read a post on dot.Rory today about an Anglican Vicar reporting a blogger to the police for harassing him. The blogger had called the Anglican an anti smite and had given various reasons why. The police then showed up at his door and asked him to take down his website. That sounds pretty bad right? But thing is this isn't a test case to use and start shouting about censorship. Firstly it's a serious thing that he is accusing the vicar of and if he's not got the evidence for it (he's got some stuff on his site that I've read but most of that seems to be anti-Israel rather than anti-semitic) then he shouldn't be saying in and if he has got the evidence for it then he should stand by it. But Secondly and this is the big thing the reason the police could ask him to remove his blog is that he set it up and added to it on University of Leeds Computers. If you are going to use the internet to make serious accusations about people do it on your own computer on a network you pay for otherwise you risk seeming as if you are voicing the opinion of that organisation.

In the past I've had a different view about people being accused of libel and harassment on the internet but that was different circumstances. There are some areas like internet forums which shouldn't be considered a public place and be subjected to the same libel laws as newspapers. Posting on a forum is like talking in a pub with a very loud voice technically anyone can come in and hear you so you shouldn't really say anything too bad but it's still a kind of a private conversation between you and the other pub regulars. But this blog that is in dispute is clearly a public place and is made to broadcast information to the wider public like a newspaper is and so possibly should be made to work within the same laws.

That's not to say I don't think libel laws need a rethink, they do but that doesn't effect this post.