I would have thought that it’s perfectly legal to publish seditious material against the British state on an American hosted site, under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

It’s not just Britain, but other EU countries like Germany that seem to think it’s legitimate, liberal, and morally “alright” to claim legal jurisdiction over the whole world!

Has everyone forgotten John Stuart Mill and Voltaire? Has everyone forgotten why we fought against Hitler in WW2? Has everyone forgotten what free speech actually means?!

I’m furious… the cheek of calling it free speech, when it’s just “licenced speech”; and the new Orwellian laws created by Blair’s IngSoc that, like wolves in sheep’s clothing, attempt to smuggle appalling censorship under the guise of anti-discrimination and “serious organised crime” of all things.

I just want to phucking scream! I certainly want to tell them to phuck right off without fear of losing my career, my liberty, or my family.
This isn’t “liberal democracy” - it’s coercion.

What we need is an organised campaign for a British First Amendment… I’m sure plenty of Americans would join us in this fight and support us in kicking down these evil and onerous laws.

Any takers?
I’m serious; I want to live in a free country; how about you?!

The idea is both mathematically false and very, very, cruel. There are vast, enormous, disparities of audience between sites, and an ordinary blogger simply cannot hope to have the access to oppose being libeled by an A-lister. Now, there is a set of stock replies, that maybe the libel doesn’t hurt, maybe the audience is not important. etc. etc.

But if one does care about being libeled - if the libel hurts, if the audience does matter - then the net is simply one more press ecology, with both sharks and minnows. Sure, one can sometimes get the help of powerful allies, or enemies-of-my-enemy. But that’s not any sort of deep change at all, just the same old game.

I was “there” when net-changes-libel evangelism was put forward, more than a decade ago. It’s not new. And it’s not true.

They are, however, set in a context of an intrusive media environment, and a system where tabloid newspapers are able to elicit an alarming amount of control over their targets. Compare with France, where, through whatever means, prominent figures do have private lives.

Whatever the case, I’m not sure if a constitution is the answer - it always seems to me that it ensures that political issues are settled in the courts, making the division between judiciary and politics less clear.