NationStates Jolt Archive

Seem not to be concerns for Keele university

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6686619.stm

I think this is a bit much and going too far. It is one thing to have regulations for Keele university's website, its quite another to demand conduct of students in third party websites. There is significent diffrence between registering anger and distaste at someones conduct on a website that does not belong to you and actively seeking to control the content of that website. Its like the cartoons situation. The Muslims in the protest were well within their rights to protest and vocally state their opinion was in poor taste. But to take the 'Daily Mail' aproch of "I don't like it, therefore there should be a law against it" is too far.

Bump.

There has always been a law against defamation, and unrestricted free speech has never been allowed.

Your point?

There has always been a law against defamation, and unrestricted free speech has never been allowed.

Your point?

I think this goes beyond deformation. Deformation refers to things published or broadcast. This is the internet, it is closer to a conversation in a crowded city than it is a newspaper or radio program. Saying you can't say nasty things about someone on the internet is like saying you can't do it in public. Bringing legislation in this area is a very bad presedent

I think this goes beyond deformation. Deformation refers to things published or broadcast. This is the internet, it is closer to a conversation in a crowded city than it is a newspaper or radio program.

Defamation is not restricted to things published or broadcast at all. You have libel, which can broadly be described as things in 'permanent' form, and slander, which again, is broadly things in 'non-permanent' form.

I would say this could easily be called libel. Even if a court ruled it wasn't, however, it could still be slanderous, and so the publishers will be liable.

There has always been a law against defamation, and unrestricted free speech has never been allowed.

Your point?
Indeed. The UK has some of the strictest libel and slander laws in the Western world.

It’d be interesting to find out, though I doubt this will happen, what the student’s grievances are, as it’s hard to assess the situation without such information.

The student’s could have legitimate concerns, or they could be just moaning about a certain member of staff’s manner.

Defamation is not restricted to things published or broadcast at all. You have libel, which can broadly be described as things in 'permanent' form, and slander, which again, is broadly things in 'non-permanent' form.

I would say this could easily be called libel. Even if a court ruled it wasn't, however, it could still be slanderous, and so the publishers will be liable.

Then the libel/slander laws need reworking, as its completely inapropriate considering the nature of the internet.

Then the libel/slander laws need reworking, as its completely inapropriate considering the nature of the internet.
So a nation's laws need reworking because of the nature of the internet? That's quite a far-fetched idea.

There has been a similar trend in Canada.

I believe that administrators are just afraid of the truth. It's censorship.

After all, in the days before social websites like MySpace and FaceBook we'd talk trash about teachers over lunch. What they're doing is not much different.

What's next, are they going to ban RateMyProfessor? It's a popular website used by students to gauge the performance of various teachers so that future students know what they are in for. After all, it is not a "legitimate" way of complaining so it could be added to the list.

They are simply afraid of losing control; afraid of an uncensored truth.

I'd write more except I made a blog entry about this and I think I better express myself there. Clicky (http://whining.weaselhut.net/2007/05/24/students-berate-staff/)

There has always been a law against defamation, and unrestricted free speech has never been allowed.

the law of a nation =/= the law of the internet's

also my name is John Smith and I hate that horrible Dr Smith in I.T Keele University :p

the law of a nation =/= the law of the internet's
Though some people would like it that way despite that the internet would be better considered "international waters" most days.

Though some people would like it that way despite that the internet would be better considered "international waters" most days.

so a pirate can say "I think t' vast social probe-lems caused by president bush's(and every other politician in t' US) reluctance t' use rationality have undermined t' education o' t' US citizenship despite havin' on average more time spent in school than t' rest o' t' planet" yet heaven help if I student calls his teacher a doo-doo head (which may be true since teachers like most people have allot of doo in them)

So a nation's laws need reworking because of the nature of the internet? That's quite a far-fetched idea.
Not far fetched at all. Technological progress can change a lot and the law will have to catch up and adapt to the changed reality. The law has adapted to thechnologies such as the priniting press, radio, TV, motor vechicles, railroad and flying machines and it will continue to adapt to new technologies.

so a pirate can say "I think t' vast social probe-lems caused by president bush's(and every other politician in t' US) reluctance t' use rationality have undermined t' education o' t' US citizenship despite havin' on average more time spent in school than t' rest o' t' planet" yet heaven help if I student calls his teacher a doo-doo head (which may be true since teachers like most people have allot of doo in them)

Ok... now can you put that in English? :p ;)

Ok... now can you put that in English? :p ;)

now, now lets not bring talk of the English language to a thread on Keele University

Then the libel/slander laws need reworking, as its completely inapropriate considering the nature of the internet.

Sorry I just don't see your concern here. The article says nothing about breaches of freespeach, it tells just that some students have been warned about comments posted about teachers. This has nowt to do with freedom of speach and more to do with(as has already been said) libal and slander.

In addition the students have been told that a re-writting of internet procedures will take place.

Where in all of this is your concern about freedom of speach?

So a nation's laws need reworking because of the nature of the internet? That's quite a far-fetched idea.

Why is that a far fetched idea? National laws were reworked with the advent of broadcast mediums such as TV and radio ...

Sorry I just don't see your concern here. The article says nothing about breaches of freespeach, it tells just that some students have been warned about comments posted about teachers. This has nowt to do with freedom of speach and more to do with(as has already been said) libal and slander.

In addition the students have been told that a re-writting of internet procedures will take place.

Where in all of this is your concern about freedom of speach?

What? Libel and Slander are them selfs restrictions on freedom of speech how are these two topics NOT tied together?

now, now lets not bring talk of the English language to a thread on Keele University

Why? Because it would be partially relevant? :D

What? Libel and Slander are them selfs restrictions on freedom of speech how are these two topics NOT tied together?

No not at all, with both you are free to say what you like, but if you say libelous, or slanderours things, then be propeard to live by the results of your actions.

There is nothing stopping you from haveing your freedom of speach, but if what you say can be shown to be false, then you pay it.

No not at all, with both you are free to say what you like, but if you say libelous, or slanderours things, then be propeard to live by the results of your actions.

There is nothing stopping you from haveing your freedom of speach, but if what you say can be shown to be false, then you pay it.

But that's where the problem occurs.

A student could say, "Professor X is a lousy teacher because he present inconsistent facts on Y and is thus incompetent."

But then said professor could turn around and say, "I have my degree in that field and I gave the right information. The student just didn't bother to study."

Then you get lawyers involved and they often put a spin on things and it can turn the student's comment into something that is worse than criticism.

I know this isn't the best example but I'm just showing that it can be very simple and tha a student has a couple of choice trigger words that make the statement defamatory.

No not at all, with both you are free to say what you like, but if you say libelous, or slanderours things, then be propeard to live by the results of your actions.

There is nothing stopping you from haveing your freedom of speach, but if what you say can be shown to be false, then you pay it.

Is it really free if you have to pay for it?

Thats like saying you are free to say whatever you want but if the government does not like it you can be jailed, you have to be prepared to live by the results of your actions

Hardly Free.

But that's where the problem occurs.

A student could say, "Professor X is a lousy teacher because he present inconsistent facts on Y and is thus incompetent."

But then said professor could turn around and say, "I have my degree in that field and I gave the right information. The student just didn't bother to study."

Then you get lawyers involved and they often put a spin on things and it can turn the student's comment into something that is worse than criticism.

I know this isn't the best example but I'm just showing that it can be very simple and tha a student has a couple of choice trigger words that make the statement defamatory.

I don't know about you, but I am only comenting on the article in question.

When I read it, and took notice of the words used, and the context, in short read between the lines, all I get is tha the students that have been warned, have been so for reasons of slander or libel. You are correct it is of course up to the courts to determine the truth of that, but again I can see nothing in this article that in anyway is a threat to freedom of speach.

I would imagine it depends upon quite what the criticism made comprised. If it was little more than the basic "hur hur, he can't teach", then I must confess I see little point in censorship.

However, if the criticism errs into slanderous personal slurs, such as the famous "only nice to you if you're white" from RatemyTeacher.com, then I would imagine the teacher has every right to take legal issue with it.

Is it really free if you have to pay for it?

Thats like saying you are free to say whatever you want but if the government does not like it you can be jailed, you have to be prepared to live by the results of your actions

Hardly Free.


Bwhahaaa really? Is that what you see free speach as then? Coz I always though freedom of speech meant that you are free(allowed) to say what you will. Again this article in no way threatens this, it just reminds us that liberlous, and slanderous statment are more than likely going to hit you in the wallet, if you indulge in them.

Freedom of speech should not be a garentee that we can get away with issuing false informatinon about somebody. If I was to suggest that you are a pedophile(remember I am not suggesting that at all), I am sure that you would want the full force of the law on your side when you take me to court for slander?

So who should the law protect in such an instance, you for the lies that besmirch you good name, or me that lies, and then whinges about my freedom of speech?

In effect my freedom of speech has not been taken away from me, I have said what I have said, the accusation is there in the public domain for all to witness.

Did anything stop me using my freedom of speech? No of course not, but if I can be shown to have lied, then should I not be punished, easpecily given the nature of my words, and the possible harm it may cause the victim of my lies(you)

Thats like saying you are free to say whatever you want but if the government does not like it you can be jailed, you have to be prepared to live by the results of your actions.Location, Location , Location.

Some Countries do not enjoy Internet freedom of Speech.
Like China, Germany and.. wherever Country that college is located.. If its true they are trying to stop free speech (I did not read the details).. and if the college gets the gov to side with them.

Location, Location , Location.

Some Countries do not enjoy Internet freedom of Speech.
Like China, Germany and.. wherever Country that college is located.. If its true they are trying to stop free speech (I did not read the details).. and if the college gets the gov to side with them.

Yup and personally I don't think that this warrants any sort of lawsuit, I have have no problems with anything my student cares to write about me there have been some good and some bad things sure but to be honest I try to take them as fair criticism and improve my teaching.

Bwhahaaa really? Is that what you see free speach as then? Coz I always though freedom of speech meant that you are free(allowed) to say what you will. Again this article in no way threatens this, it just reminds us that liberlous, and slanderous statment are more than likely going to hit you in the wallet, if you indulge in them.

Freedom of speech should not be a garentee that we can get away with issuing false informatinon about somebody. If I was to suggest that you are a pedophile(remember I am not suggesting that at all), I am sure that you would want the full force of the law on your side when you take me to court for slander?

So who should the law protect in such an instance, you for the lies that besmirch you good name, or me that lies, and then whinges about my freedom of speech?

In effect my freedom of speech has not been taken away from me, I have said what I have said, the accusation is there in the public domain for all to witness.

Did anything stop me using my freedom of speech? No of course not, but if I can be shown to have lied, then should I not be punished, easpecily given the nature of my words, and the possible harm it may cause the victim of my lies(you)

It is a restriction on freedom of speech if i sued you for saying that

Remember I made no comment on if it was a REASONABLE restriction on freedom of speech just that it is

I don't know about you, but I am only comenting on the article in question.

When I read it, and took notice of the words used, and the context, in short read between the lines, all I get is tha the students that have been warned, have been so for reasons of slander or libel. You are correct it is of course up to the courts to determine the truth of that, but again I can see nothing in this article that in anyway is a threat to freedom of speach.

That's what I thought too, but then I looked closely at the notice issued by the university and while it seems like there is no inherent threat, they are showing the early signs of control. They want to control where the students can post "legitimate" complaints, which to me smacks of censorship in an underhanded kind of way.

They want to do damage control. They are trying to censor not WHAT but WHERE the students can post their concerns. It's subtle but still a form of censorship because they are limiting where the students can vent their frustrations.

When I was in college we had "professor" evaluation forms, but they were total garbage. The forms were an attempt to placate the student body. They really achieve nothing because of the teachers' union.

That's what I thought too, but then I looked closely at the notice issued by the university and while it seems like there is no inherent threat, they are showing the early signs of control. They want to control where the students can post "legitimate" complaints, which to me smacks of censorship in an underhanded kind of way.

They want to do damage control. They are trying to censor not WHAT but WHERE the students can post their concerns. It's subtle but still a form of censorship because they are limiting where the students can vent their frustrations.

When I was in college we had "professor" evaluation forms, but they were total garbage. The forms were an attempt to placate the student body. They really achieve nothing because of the teachers' union.

Same and what was worse is they are hand written and given back to the professor before grades are due

When you are in a 5 person class and the end of the semester the professor knows your hand writing name or not

the law of a nation =/= the law of the internet's

So if I sit here in the UK and post child pornography, the police shouldn't be allowed to touch me?

Yes, we should all be grateful that the internet offers greater opportunities for uncensored information. But that doesn't mean that we should think the internet is a huge free-for-all, where anything goes.

If you damage someone's reputation, then it doesn't matter that you do it in cyberspace; you should be prepared to compensate them for their loss.

Is Keele a private university? If so they can place pretty much whatever restriction they want.

I think this goes beyond deformation. Deformation refers to things published or broadcast. This is the internet, it is closer to a conversation in a crowded city than it is a newspaper or radio program. Saying you can't say nasty things about someone on the internet is like saying you can't do it in public. Bringing legislation in this area is a very bad presedent

Why look, what are those things on the screen. They seem to be... letters.
Yep, I do believe that's publishing.

Then the libel/slander laws need reworking, as its completely inapropriate considering the nature of the internet.

Oh, because people THINK they are completely anonymous and therefore can say whatever they like on the 'net without consequences?

I think this goes beyond deformation. Deformation refers to things published or broadcast. This is the internet, it is closer to a conversation in a crowded city than it is a newspaper or radio program. Saying you can't say nasty things about someone on the internet is like saying you can't do it in public. Bringing legislation in this area is a very bad presedent

You mean defamation.

Is it really free if you have to pay for it?

Thats like saying you are free to say whatever you want but if the government does not like it you can be jailed, you have to be prepared to live by the results of your actions

Hardly Free.

Ah but is it the government punishing them for their speech? Or the university?

So if I sit here in the UK and post child pornography, the police shouldn't be allowed to touch me.

Some people in this thread seem not to realise that if you do something that's illegal in the country where you live it won't be less illegal to do it online.

If you live in the UK and break UK law you will suffer the consequences of it. The Internet is not a magical shield that suddenly makes what you did untouchable by the judiciary of the country in which you reside.

Ah but is it the government punishing them for their speech? Or the university?

The government, their laws their courts and their enforcement

If they are providing a means and enforcing a means of reperations they are most deffinatly playing a big part

That's what I thought too, but then I looked closely at the notice issued by the university and while it seems like there is no inherent threat, they are showing the early signs of control. They want to control where the students can post "legitimate" complaints, which to me smacks of censorship in an underhanded kind of way.

<snip>

So in other words, this college wants to make "free speech zones" apply to the Internet as well as the physical campus? :eek:

The government, their laws their courts and their enforcement

If they are providing a means and enforcing a means of reperations they are most deffinatly playing a big part

But the UK has not said, "We're going to put you in jail."
The university has said, "You are responsible for what you've printed, and our staff will prosecute to the fullest extent of the exisiting law if you have defamed them."

That's no different than if someone has been defamed in any other situation. If you say something damaging about someone that is proven to be untrue, they have a right to try to collect damages.

Remember also that truth is an absolute defense. If I call someone a child rapist publicly, they can try to collect damages -- if it's proven to be a true statement, they won't be successful.