I've been reading this book intermittently for about 4 months - which is why I don't really have a very coherent argument to make about it. I came away with the following impressions:
1. Do not defame anyone in your blog
2. We do not really have freedom of speech in England because of the libel laws
3. If your opinion is defamatory you can be sued for it.
4. Religious groups, chiropractors, businesses and other shady characters will use the libel laws in an horrendous manner.
5. JS Mill's principle that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they do not harm anyone else is basically a sound one.
6. Offending someone is not actually "harming" them. Religious groups asking for "respect" is a bit unreasonable, and leads towards ludicrous laws.
7. Britain is actually a remarkably free country and has been for a long time,. but our libel laws are making a mockery of this.
I expect there's more, but these were the things that most struck me. I was shocked by the way the system makes it almost impossible for whistle-blowers to function in the public and private sectors, and I was pleased with his attack on Wiki-leaks. He recognises, as I do, that there are certain things that need to be kept secret - a list of the Afghans who have supported the West against the Taliban was an example of something that should not have been released unredacted, as it was. As I have had long had feelings and opinions about Julian Assange, I was quite pleased to read the rather discreditable story about JA having said "Well, they were informers, they deserved to be killed" at a lunch with some journalist. (JA later denied this, but there were several witnesses). It supports my thesis that JA is either aspergic, or some sort of psychopath whose entire function in the Wikileaks saga has been self-aggrandisement.
I learned a lot from this book - I am not sure how much of it will stick, but it's very much worth reading and I'm glad I did.
Curiously, at present I am more drawn to non-fiction than fiction but....need to read more novels.
1. Do not defame anyone in your blog
2. We do not really have freedom of speech in England because of the libel laws
3. If your opinion is defamatory you can be sued for it.
4. Religious groups, chiropractors, businesses and other shady characters will use the libel laws in an horrendous manner.
5. JS Mill's principle that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they do not harm anyone else is basically a sound one.
6. Offending someone is not actually "harming" them. Religious groups asking for "respect" is a bit unreasonable, and leads towards ludicrous laws.
7. Britain is actually a remarkably free country and has been for a long time,. but our libel laws are making a mockery of this.
I expect there's more, but these were the things that most struck me. I was shocked by the way the system makes it almost impossible for whistle-blowers to function in the public and private sectors, and I was pleased with his attack on Wiki-leaks. He recognises, as I do, that there are certain things that need to be kept secret - a list of the Afghans who have supported the West against the Taliban was an example of something that should not have been released unredacted, as it was. As I have had long had feelings and opinions about Julian Assange, I was quite pleased to read the rather discreditable story about JA having said "Well, they were informers, they deserved to be killed" at a lunch with some journalist. (JA later denied this, but there were several witnesses). It supports my thesis that JA is either aspergic, or some sort of psychopath whose entire function in the Wikileaks saga has been self-aggrandisement.
I learned a lot from this book - I am not sure how much of it will stick, but it's very much worth reading and I'm glad I did.
Curiously, at present I am more drawn to non-fiction than fiction but....need to read more novels.
No comments:
Post a Comment