Speaking blogs to power
at 10:22pm on Wednesday, 26th September 2007
It seemed worth highlighting the unfortunate blogging saga involving billionaire and Arsenal shareholder Alisher Usmanov (here's his wikipedia entry - it should be interesting to see how this develops).
Earlier this month Craig Murray, former ambassador to Uzbekistan, posted a strongly worded, um, 'critique' of Usmanov that contained a number of allegations regarding his conduct during his rise up the ranks of rich post-communists. Usmanov denies them and via law firm Schillings forced the post to be removed.
Following this, Schillings maintained legal pressure on both Murray, fellow blogger Tim Ireland, their server manager and webhosts Fasthosts. The long and short of it is, following this pressure, two servers were taken down - meaning a range of unrelated sites were downed at the same time. Boris Johnson's site was among them. It generated quite a bit of attention - Sunny Hundal was on More4, an interview you can watch at his PickledPolitics.
Tim Ireland has reemerged with a new blog, with a timeline of the process. Fasthosts don't come out of that version covered in glory.
Aside from the compelling questions about money in football, there seem to be two key points - both concerning some pretty basic principles of free speech.
Firstly, what kind of libel law permits the removal of allegations without a hint of accountability? Especially when that extends to the removal of a range of outlets completely unrelated to the 'offending' piece?
Secondly, what was the responsibility of Fasthosts to either prevent the post being put up, or to insist, or make sure, that it comes down? The ethical incentives for them to resist Schillings pressure clearly did not match the financial or resource drive to avoid court action.
It does't seem a particularly acceptable state of affairs that a post containing claims and allegations can be forced out of view in such an unaccountable fashion, with almost zero explanation. Perhaps the law firm have exploited this separation of host, and content producer. Whereas newspapers have some investment in the content of their publications, most webhosts presumably care little, in practicable terms, for what is held on the servers they own. It's therefore probably less likely to end up in court. Craig Murray's opinion on this is pretty clear: 'If the man believes he was libelled then he should take me to court".
Both of these suggest some changes to libel law are in order; but I'm no expert, so perhaps someone with a sharper legal brain can explain how and why this might have unfolded as it did?
(Incidentally, and unsurprisingly, it's really easy to find the original post. Craig Murray's wikipedia site has links to it, for example. Am I allowed to say its a good read?)
Earlier this month Craig Murray, former ambassador to Uzbekistan, posted a strongly worded, um, 'critique' of Usmanov that contained a number of allegations regarding his conduct during his rise up the ranks of rich post-communists. Usmanov denies them and via law firm Schillings forced the post to be removed.
Following this, Schillings maintained legal pressure on both Murray, fellow blogger Tim Ireland, their server manager and webhosts Fasthosts. The long and short of it is, following this pressure, two servers were taken down - meaning a range of unrelated sites were downed at the same time. Boris Johnson's site was among them. It generated quite a bit of attention - Sunny Hundal was on More4, an interview you can watch at his PickledPolitics.
Tim Ireland has reemerged with a new blog, with a timeline of the process. Fasthosts don't come out of that version covered in glory.
Aside from the compelling questions about money in football, there seem to be two key points - both concerning some pretty basic principles of free speech.
Firstly, what kind of libel law permits the removal of allegations without a hint of accountability? Especially when that extends to the removal of a range of outlets completely unrelated to the 'offending' piece?
Secondly, what was the responsibility of Fasthosts to either prevent the post being put up, or to insist, or make sure, that it comes down? The ethical incentives for them to resist Schillings pressure clearly did not match the financial or resource drive to avoid court action.
It does't seem a particularly acceptable state of affairs that a post containing claims and allegations can be forced out of view in such an unaccountable fashion, with almost zero explanation. Perhaps the law firm have exploited this separation of host, and content producer. Whereas newspapers have some investment in the content of their publications, most webhosts presumably care little, in practicable terms, for what is held on the servers they own. It's therefore probably less likely to end up in court. Craig Murray's opinion on this is pretty clear: 'If the man believes he was libelled then he should take me to court".
Both of these suggest some changes to libel law are in order; but I'm no expert, so perhaps someone with a sharper legal brain can explain how and why this might have unfolded as it did?
(Incidentally, and unsurprisingly, it's really easy to find the original post. Craig Murray's wikipedia site has links to it, for example. Am I allowed to say its a good read?)
LOGIN to add comments
Comments