What do you make of this type of case where a legal action can be taken against a writer of a book that has not been written yet. This action is certainly a threat against all writers and journalists

The ban was lifted when Rushdie himself said that he’d seen the film, thought it was drivel, and that banning it would give it a stature it patently didn’t deserve – and since he was the only person capable of bringing a libel suit, the justification for the ban shrivelled instantly.

The duly opened in British cinemas and sank like a stone, despite a somewhat optimistic marketing campaign – which is exactly what Rushdie hoped would happen.

Wrong – Libel is a civic action/ I think you mean criminal libel, and that would work if the CPS were to prosecute the BNP etc. sites.

In his threatening remarks about censorship, Andy Burnham talks mainly about children, which is fine, but he leaves the other areas of censorship omimnously unspecified. I had an immediate feeling of ‘panic’ about everything else that could be censored – those Russians I encountered on HP who manage to evade the claws of Putin, thanks to the internet.. If Berlusconi had a tenth of a chance, he would eliminate Beppe Grillo’s blog. (I think he is known outside of Italy -?)

Isn’t there already enough censorship on the internet? Paedophilia is already illegal, so what’s the fuss about? Internet offers the police the occasion to track them down. Much of youtube is censored already.

Beppe Grillo has been banned completely from appearing on TV. He says the truth, names names and deeds, attacks the fairly large number of parliamentarians who have been condemned for their crimes but are carrying on as usual, thanks to parliamentary immunity. Many popular political satirists were banned from TV in Italy. Some came back under the brief Prodi government, but they have modified their tones. This is inexcusable censorship. For it to be applied also to the internet would bring us that much closer to the feeling of living under Pukey Putin.

Marcus asked us to give a harm rating to sites we visit regularly.
I would give a harm rating to all the sites I visit, but certaunly not with a view to censhorship.

Shakespeare sites harm that author (which means harming us) by not really writing about him.

Most of the sites I look up for info on composers and poets have such poor material, that they are damaging both to the artists and to culture in general. If Burnham paid more attention to this sort of thing, if he really were a minister of culture, encouraging the offer of sites with real substance in them, this would be the best way of opposing the bad stuff. Ministers of culture are beginning to resemble Soviet cutural commissars.

HP is a favourite site of mine and the best of a bad bunch. (Please remember, I like to joke). It belongs within a context of the greatest importance: the opposition to mentalities that are trapped in mindless ideolgies and violence. I’ve always known about the dangers that threaten our world, but have become more acutely aware of them thanks to HP.

HP is a fast moving blog, and despite its great critical faculties, also provides people with the chance to get their rocks off. I wouldn’t want to change it. But ideally I’d like to see it associated with another site which:

- identifies the fascistoid phenomena, not only in your particular enemies, but also in our society as a whole.
- studies these phenomena in depth, eg. taking an SWP newspaper and analysing its language very thoroughly.
- sees in BNP members not only the shits they are, but a distorted mind, distorted by social mechanisms and to pay attention to the circumstances which foster them
- ie.studies their causes, how and why they arise.
- tries to do something about it. This is difficult. I’m working, reading,thinking about it.

If I were younger and cleverer I would try to create such a companion website. But I hardly have the strength to complete preparations for my own website, on which, in any case, every word will speak against hidebound personality structures. I’ll advertise HP there and bring over some of the arguments.

I’m a feminist who writes about, among other things, the more deformed sorts of male psychopathology.

Irony aside; men hold no monopoly in deformed psychpathology!

That he makes this point at all, is very revealing about his underlying motivation. It is a good thing that there are spaces that governments can not reach. A healthy society is one which places restrictions on the scope and reach of the cloying, stifling, presence of government.

Of course, Burnham would regard this as offensive, that anyone could object to any increase in his power.

As for the protection of children, that is the job of parents and guardians. If they want to avail themselves of child-safety portals or other utilities, that is a matter for them. Just as it is their decision whether to let their children read their copy of Ulysses.

We need to get back to the old fashioned idea that the government has no right to interfere with folk who have committed no crimes.

If the CPC can’t keep the PRC effectively walled off with all the totalitarian powers at their sidposal, how the frack this this retard think he’s going to do it ? And in PRC access to VPN is limited because not so easy to may payements outside the country; I’ll look forward to selling VPN access to censored Brits for 5 bucks a month – Paypal will do just fine.

It’s interesting that this loser has as low an opinion of Obama as I have though; fortunately, over here we have a constitution to protect us from this kind of thing. Maybe, something like this might be enough for enough of you to demand one of your own. Oh, sorry, I forgot – you’ve got that EU thingy. Let’s see how much protection that gives you from this; anybody ?

This is the problem. If you know that someone’s a crank, it’s easy enough to treat them as such – which is why I confidently predict that David Lindsay is most unlikely ever to find himself on the receiving end of a libel writ. But if a rumour appears on a popular blog and is widely disseminated, it becomes accepted as “fact” even if none of the individual circulators can in any way be described as reliable sources.