3 ms·

I'm sure the Yale bureaucracy likewise has reams of paper scribbled with words like "academic freedom" and "free discourse". What's interesting is that people a

I'm sure the Yale bureaucracy likewise has reams of paper scribbled with words like "academic freedom" and "free discourse". What's interesting is that people are actively defending these principles at personal cost -- not idly hoping for some high hallowed office to dole them out. That's the observation.

blibble 13y ago
if you wish to be pedantic they seem to be working around the university using clever technical hacks, rather than fighting the underlying issue. (note that it's the law in the UK, not some worthless university document)
- throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
  This is an active and vibrant defense of freedom, not some worthless British law. (Oh I'm sorry, did I just libel Her Majesty's judicial system? How careless of me. I should watch what I write).
  - blibble 13y ago
    > This is an active and vibrant defense of freedom, not some worthless British law. > (Oh I'm sorry, did I just libel Her Majesty's judicial system? How careless of me. I should watch what I write). guess I missed the bit of the US constitution where other people's databases were considered protected speech.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - mcintyre1994 13y ago
    Wait, why is the British law worthless? I'm assuming I'm mistaken, but your claim seems to be solely on the fact you can commit libel from what seems to be the USA on a website not hosted in the UK. That would seem to imply our entire legal system is broken because we don't censor other countries publications, and it'd obviously be interesting to hear the justification behind that.
    - throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
      "but your claim seems to be solely on the fact you can commit libel from what seems to be the USA on a website not hosted in the UK." We're sidetracked, but that's pretty much the definition of libel tourism, and the UK is notorious for it: http://www.economist.com/node/12903058 http://www.economist.com/node/12903058 The UK routinely finds libel judgements against non-Britons, outside of Britain, having essentially no connection with the UK. It's an extremely broken system responsible for widespread legal harassment outside of Britain (examples in article). It's not enforceable in the US obviously. There's a US law that explicitly prohibits that, provoked by a particularly egregious case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
      - arethuza 13y ago
        Nitpick: You're talking about England and Wales, not the UK. In this part of the UK it's not even called "libel".
        throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
        Thanks, didn't know this!
        arethuza 13y ago
        It's OK - I believe the French used to have saying along the lines of "As touchy as a Scot"... :-)
  - ZoFreX 13y ago
    > (Oh I'm sorry, did I just libel Her Majesty's judicial system? How careless of me. I should watch what I write). Look, this is getting old. We had a massive libel reform which, while not as revolutionary as many people wanted, still made significant changes, and you are doing the thousands of people that worked hard to make that happen a giant disservice. Please read up on the status quo before making cheap jabs.

blibble 13y ago

if you wish to be pedantic they seem to be working around the university using clever technical hacks, rather than fighting the underlying issue. (note that it's the law in the UK, not some worthless university document)

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
This is an active and vibrant defense of freedom, not some worthless British law. (Oh I'm sorry, did I just libel Her Majesty's judicial system? How careless of me. I should watch what I write).
- blibble 13y ago
  > This is an active and vibrant defense of freedom, not some worthless British law. > (Oh I'm sorry, did I just libel Her Majesty's judicial system? How careless of me. I should watch what I write). guess I missed the bit of the US constitution where other people's databases were considered protected speech.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- mcintyre1994 13y ago
  Wait, why is the British law worthless? I'm assuming I'm mistaken, but your claim seems to be solely on the fact you can commit libel from what seems to be the USA on a website not hosted in the UK. That would seem to imply our entire legal system is broken because we don't censor other countries publications, and it'd obviously be interesting to hear the justification behind that.
  - throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
    "but your claim seems to be solely on the fact you can commit libel from what seems to be the USA on a website not hosted in the UK." We're sidetracked, but that's pretty much the definition of libel tourism, and the UK is notorious for it: http://www.economist.com/node/12903058 http://www.economist.com/node/12903058 The UK routinely finds libel judgements against non-Britons, outside of Britain, having essentially no connection with the UK. It's an extremely broken system responsible for widespread legal harassment outside of Britain (examples in article). It's not enforceable in the US obviously. There's a US law that explicitly prohibits that, provoked by a particularly egregious case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
    - arethuza 13y ago
      Nitpick: You're talking about England and Wales, not the UK. In this part of the UK it's not even called "libel".
      - throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
        Thanks, didn't know this!
        arethuza 13y ago
        It's OK - I believe the French used to have saying along the lines of "As touchy as a Scot"... :-)
- ZoFreX 13y ago
  > (Oh I'm sorry, did I just libel Her Majesty's judicial system? How careless of me. I should watch what I write). Look, this is getting old. We had a massive libel reform which, while not as revolutionary as many people wanted, still made significant changes, and you are doing the thousands of people that worked hard to make that happen a giant disservice. Please read up on the status quo before making cheap jabs.