The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1827 Tuesday, 5 October 2004
Date: Monday, 4 Oct 2004 07:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1816 Modified Procedures
Comment: Re: SHK 15.1816 Modified Procedures
Stuart Hampton-Reeves writes, "Regarding the recent post about Simon
Russell Beale, Stanley Wells writes about comments that "I should
imagine would have been libellous if they had appeared in print. I don't
see why they should be regarded as any more acceptable on the internet."
Whether the comments are libellous or not does not depend on whether
they are in print or on the internet. Charles W should not worry unduly
however - it will be Hardy who receives the writ as the email containing
the libel is from him. This, for me, is the most worrying aspect of the
affair and why moderated procedures are essential for the future of this
Excuse me, Monsieur Stuart Hampton-Reeves. You are in the U.K. and you
must understand that U.K. law and your interpretation of U.K. law has no
relevance. Hardy is in America, and his list originates in America, and
American law rules!
I have been in journalism enough years to know whereof I speak, as this
has been explained ad nauseam and should be for the record in the
archives to be *CLEARLY* understood.
In American law, slander is verbal assault and libel is written. Period.
In American law, Hardy is the publisher and publishes a disclaimer to
all posts. Period.
In American law, if what C.W. wrote were to be libellous as written
word, then he is *SOLELY* responsible.
In American law, parody or satire *CANNOT* be libellous. If C.W. says
what he wrote was a parody or satire, then the aggrieved party *MUST*
object and then Monsieur C.W. can offer a rebuttal or an apology.
I hope this is *CLEAR*!
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.