I have to say a resounding ‘yes’ because through recent experience I discovered that certain laws pertaining to court cases very distinctly refer to the published word and not the publisher…
Look at it this way; for the past 12 months my sites were hosted in the United Kingdom and it was not until I began writing about the ‘Baby P’ case that it became clear that restrictions placed on reporting certain details extended beyond that of the print media and into the world of blogging. So as it turned out I was almost charged with contempt of court but only because my blog was hosted in the UK.
Here is where it matters where your blog is hosted: my American counterparts reporting also on the Baby P case could not be touched – not because of the fact they were out of the UK, but because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. A blog hosted in the US has this protection regardless of the fact you are not in the US. I know this because the DI who contacted me also tried to get a couple of US hosted blogs taken down and the hosting companies told him to take a hike…
So now my sites are hosted in the United States and with the best blog hosting company I could find. Over the coming weeks and months – as long as it takes really – I will be writing about the horror of the German Jugendamt and it’s policy of child abduction within Germany I am hoping to get the message out to as many people around the world as possible about this evil that exists and the one thing I am glad about is the security of my site. I might be looking to include a forum for any interested people to discuss the issues – depending on the level of interest.
Copyright © 2007-2012 Cultured Views. All rights reserved.Related posts:
You should take some legal advice because your liability to contempt of court depends on whether you personally are within the jurisdiction. That is different from the take-downs, which may depend very much on the attitudes of the hosts.
You may also care to note this case
Girl died after being starved
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8084972.stm
and note that everyone has been identified even though there are five other children at issue apart from the deceased one.
Ditto this story from Hebden Bridge, which is also fully identified.
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2009/06/underclass-news-hebden-bridge.html
No idea what the Baby P judge thought he was playing at. Anonymity was never necessary and was never credible once the ids were in the public domain. Fantasy law – there’s a lot of it about.
Good luck with the upcoming articles – I await them eagerly.
Thankyou for the interesting comments. I feel that the human rights lawyers were mostly responsible for the anonymity surrounding the mother of ‘baby P’ and the boyfriend – sure enough they were bleating about her human rights being violated back in December regarding the outcry against her!
Judge Kramer was one I did not understand; I was contacted by the Met Police as well as the Attorney Generals Office to inform me I was in contempt of court for publishing the names and the link to the courthouse where the trial was being held.
In fact, the courthouse website had itself fully published the names of the accused in the court status plus their trial number and court room…and it was not held in a closed court but rather an open court.
So in fact the Old Bailey website was itself in contempt of court!
I have noted the case today regarding the little girl starved to death – five other children are involved and interestingly the names of the accused are right out there in the public domain…why?
I found it funny actually when the detective told me he had contacted some webhosting companies in the USA to ask them to take down the sites reporting on baby Peter…they told the British detective to go jump!
I should perhaps explain that the police and some lawyers will try to tell the unwary that “this is the law” and they take the bet that you either can’t look it up fast enough, or can’t afford an instant media lawyer.
Recently I’ve had several arguments like that from people in the education system, who tend to say “the law says…” when it says nothing of the sort.
An immediate test is to ask the person who is leaning on you to quote the statute and section they are relying on. If they bluster, they are making it up. If they come back with either referenced case law or an actual statute, then they might be right.