It appears that Scotland Yard wants a piece of me
- Thread starter jdomaha
- Start date
- Status
The great thing about the US, in my mind at least, is the fact that we have not only a judiciary that is mostly free of the rest of the governing bodies, but that we have an independent press that constantly works to keep all levels of government accountable by putting in front of the citizenry information that the government might not want the public to know.
Publishing that information might have been a mistake. Leaving it up might be a mistake. I'd rather that kind of mistake be made than a mistake of omitting that information, however. As Thomas Jefferson said, if he had to choose between government and newspapers, he would choose the latter, because the latter is the long-term guarantor of the former.
As for revealing the identities of those involved, it's not going to happen. Without journalistic confidentiality, there isn't a free press. Without information being able to be published by people who can guarantee the privacy of confidential sources, those sources would disappear and the press would be muted.
If you saw something that wasn't right, would you blow the whistle on corruption and misuse of power if the powerful in government could just find out who you are with a simple court order?
Publishing that information might have been a mistake. Leaving it up might be a mistake. I'd rather that kind of mistake be made than a mistake of omitting that information, however. As Thomas Jefferson said, if he had to choose between government and newspapers, he would choose the latter, because the latter is the long-term guarantor of the former.
As for revealing the identities of those involved, it's not going to happen. Without journalistic confidentiality, there isn't a free press. Without information being able to be published by people who can guarantee the privacy of confidential sources, those sources would disappear and the press would be muted.
If you saw something that wasn't right, would you blow the whistle on corruption and misuse of power if the powerful in government could just find out who you are with a simple court order?
They've just got their panties in a twist, because you Americans can extradite Brits for any damn offence you choose, whether or not it's a crime over in UK. However, it doesn't apply in the other direction.
Yeah, real nice piece of negotiation, Blunkett (our home secretary at the time).
Even so, consult a lawyer.
With all due respect to my learned friends on this thread, I doubt that anyone here (myself included) has the slightest fucking clue where you really stand when it comes to cross-border law.
Yeah, real nice piece of negotiation, Blunkett (our home secretary at the time).
Even so, consult a lawyer.
With all due respect to my learned friends on this thread, I doubt that anyone here (myself included) has the slightest fucking clue where you really stand when it comes to cross-border law.
Just take it down and put it back up the day the trial is over. Replace it with an opt-in form and tell the user that this page was taken down at the request of Scotland yard and you'll gladly email them once the trial is over and the content is back up.
...or if they sign up for a free Playstation.
But seriously, there is no harm in talking to them. Ask for their reasoning as to why they have that request. They can't demand it obviously, but if they explain it to you, and you come to the conclusion that it would really be better to take it down, then they'd owe you one. To return the favor, you could ask for exclusive coverage and that they refer to your website in all their future press releases. Something like that.
Until you decide whether to take it down or not though, stir it up as much as possible. This might just be your chance to turn that site of yours into a real asset.
Yes. First of all, these people are used to making deals, I'd even say they make them all the time. Second, there's always someone in charge. Don't think "omgz it's Scotland Yard, hail to the Queen" - it's a detail assigned to this case, and a person assigned to this task. One person. She has a problem. If you offer a soltuion (the only solution to their problem) that doesn't hurt them and gets them what they want, they will consider it.
I believe namedropping the website once or twice is a small price for protecting such a huge case.
Yeah it's 1984 here... but maybe it can work both ways? BBC NEWS | Magazine | When all video all
I'm no expert, but I think if you ignore it you could be found guilty of contempt of court in your absence and a warrant issued for your arrest. It's very unlikely they'd seek extradition but step off a plane here and you'd probably face a few questions.
OMG after months of newbie lurking, I can finally contribute. No legal advise intended but as a paralegal for 18 years (5 when I started) & 6 in international law, let me say that 1. the Brits have no more jurisdiction over you than Joe Copola in (your town) has over some Brit. 2. the legal concept of extradition is returning someone to the scene of the crime ie you did it here not there so FOBrits. 3. All we are left with is the Geneva Convention. All the power boys got together & agreed on what shit it would take to give up their citizens. Guess what...posting on the internet wasn't one of them...yet. That said jdomah consider being a good world citizen to help the cops do their job dealing with the baby killers & figure out a way to MMOL with it too. That way everyone wins but the baby killers.
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
I know a lot of you flag waving types think this is fine, but it's pretty serious.
The UK takes contempt of court charges about as seriously as murder.
Whilst I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, from what I learnt in media law units at uni our legal system is the same as theirs except for case based precedents, and I'm going to have to disagree with Lizard.
You will be safe from criminal action so long as you don't go to the UK... However, their consulate may request to have you extradited for prejudicing a trial and contempt of court, as the contempt offense took place there. That'll be costly to fight but you can win it easily enough on the basis that if you do go to trial in the UK and are imprisoned there you stand to be harmed in a serious way whilst in prison.
You're also open to a civil suit if the accused are in any way harmed due to information from your site being used by someone to locate and harm them. If that happens, the case will be fought in their locality, even if you're in absentia, and thanks to economic treaties, if you end up having to pay they can get at it.
The UK takes contempt of court charges about as seriously as murder.
Whilst I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, from what I learnt in media law units at uni our legal system is the same as theirs except for case based precedents, and I'm going to have to disagree with Lizard.
You will be safe from criminal action so long as you don't go to the UK... However, their consulate may request to have you extradited for prejudicing a trial and contempt of court, as the contempt offense took place there. That'll be costly to fight but you can win it easily enough on the basis that if you do go to trial in the UK and are imprisoned there you stand to be harmed in a serious way whilst in prison.
You're also open to a civil suit if the accused are in any way harmed due to information from your site being used by someone to locate and harm them. If that happens, the case will be fought in their locality, even if you're in absentia, and thanks to economic treaties, if you end up having to pay they can get at it.
Harvey, your hair freaks me out but that aside I respectfully disagree. Of course the UK can do (almost) anything when you enter their borders - that's their laws. But again the legal concept of extradition is returning someone to the scene of the crime. You cannot summons someone to your country because they allegedly broke your laws. Serious or not, the judge is a Brit judge, not a judge (with jurisdiction) in the US. Also anyone can sue but in what court? If the court doesn't have jurisdiction (authority granted) SFW. You win zip. Share with me the economic treaties the US has entered into regarding web postings that concede damages determined by foreign judges. I can't find it. Again, do it for good world citizenship & a dead baby but not for bowing down to the Queen.
They can't do anything to you, you don't live in Britain. On the other hand if you think the info on your site might get someone killed you might want to take it down. Your choice though, they can't make you do it.
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
Sorry, you're correct there. Reading over it again the words "economic treaties" was a fuckup... probably because I was trying to hold two trains of thought at the one time.
Anyway, the precedent for the ability to sue across territories was set in Dow Jones & Co Inc V Gutnick (2002) which has been the basis of a jus inter gentes. The precedent has been successfully used in Britain as well if I remember my assignment research.
- Status