Katie Hopkins says Sun banned her from writing about Madeleine McCann!

[G-Unit]

So what is Hopkins unable to say that she would like to
I'm rather glad we don't live in a country like Portugal where reputations can be totally trashed by people being able to say what they like even if it is untrue

I think Ms Hopkins has managed to say what she wanted to. What we don't know is whether other journalists can do the same.

Do you seriously believe that censorship is preferable to freedom of speech? Or is that only when you think the censorship is justified?

I think you may have quite the wrong idea of Portugal. It is criticised for it's denial of freedom of speech, not it's upholding of it;

IPI report highlights need for defamation reform in Portugal
Criminal provisions, civil compensation highlighted as threats to press freedom

...a number of journalists and legal experts participating in the Lisbon seminar expressed particular concern over the threat posed to freedom of expression by high levels of compensation in civil defamation cases.

The report also highlights concerns among Portuguese legal experts and journalists as to whether the country’s courts give proper weight to freedom of expression when considering defamation cases. In part, these concerns were motivated by what appeared to be an unusually high number of ECHR cases in which Portugal was condemned for violating Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

IPI research, highlighted in the report, shows that between January 2005 and January 2015, Portugal was condemned 18 times in Art. 10 cases.
http://ipi.freemedia.at/newssview/article/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal.html

[Alfie]

Once again it seems that a serious point can't be discussed because of deflection.

I happen to think that our media should raise it's standards, stop copying and pasting each other's [often inaccurate] stories and start to invest in proper research and balanced reporting.

A lot of people have never experienced serious responsible news reporting and the media may find that they would get more interest by raising their standards.

Please note I'm not recommending Katie Hopkins type pieces, but if a family can intimidate the media to the extent that Ms Hopkins alleges then freedom of the press doesn't exist in the UK.

Factual informative journalism seems to be the obvious way to go to avoid such problems in the future because it was lazy, badly researched sensationalist stories which opened the door to the alleged gagging.

I asked you for examples of aspects of the case which you would like to see reported in the media but which you obviously feel the media are unable to do so because the are so scared of the McCanns.  You cited the recent court judgment which could easily have been reported indepth and completely factually and therefore been quite unlikely to have faced any sort of legal action.  Indeed according to Katie Hopkins even the threat of legal action would not prevent the Mail printing articles critical of the McCanns.  So, apart from the recent court judgement indepth reportage which would undoubtedly be of little interest to all but the most fanatical McCann obsessives, what aspects of the case do you think the Mail should be investigating in depth and reporting to its readers that it's not, and what do you think is stopping it from doing so?

[G-Unit]

I asked you for examples of aspects of the case which you would like to see reported in the media but which you obviously feel the media are unable to do so because the are so scared of the McCanns.  You cited the recent court judgment which could easily have been reported indepth and completely factually and therefore been quite unlikely to have faced any sort of legal action.  Indeed according to Katie Hopkins even the threat of legal action would not prevent the Mail printing articles critical of the McCanns.  So, apart from the recent court judgement indepth reportage which would undoubtedly be of little interest to all but the most fanatical McCann obsessives, what aspects of the case do you think the Mail should be investigating in depth and reporting to its readers that it's not, and what do you think is stopping it from doing so?

I gave one example. I could give more but that's not the point. The point [which you seem to have missed] is that rather than allegedly running scared they could, by writing well thought out factual stories, avoid being restricted by the whims of whoever has Carter Ruck and a skilled media manipulator in their corner. I don't suppose they care, to their shame. That's one of the reasons why I haven't bought a UK newspaper for 20 years.

[Alfie]

I gave one example. I could give more but that's not the point. The point [which you seem to have missed] is that rather than allegedly running scared they could, by writing well thought out factual stories, avoid being restricted by the whims of whoever has Carter Ruck and a skilled media manipulator in their corner. I don't suppose they care, to their shame. That's one of the reasons why I haven't bought a UK newspaper for 20 years.

If they were writing well-thought out factual articles then they would have nothing to fear from Carter Ruck and the McCanns, unless of course by "well thought out" you mean articles which imply that the McCanns hid their child's body and started a bogus fund.  Newspapers have uncovered many miscarriages of justice and fradulent behaviours in the last 20 years, one paper managed to bring the whole of the House of Commons into disrepute, so I think you rather underestimate them, or at least tar them all with the same brush.

[Alice Purjorick]

So the papers can print what they like as long as it's true but they can't simply print accusations that cannot be substantiated that sounds about fair to me

I didn't sat that.

[Mr Gray]

I think Ms Hopkins has managed to say what she wanted to. What we don't know is whether other journalists can do the same.

Do you seriously believe that censorship is preferable to freedom of speech? Or is that only when you think the censorship is justified?

I think you may have quite the wrong idea of Portugal. It is criticised for it's denial of freedom of speech, not it's upholding of it;

IPI report highlights need for defamation reform in Portugal
Criminal provisions, civil compensation highlighted as threats to press freedom

...a number of journalists and legal experts participating in the Lisbon seminar expressed particular concern over the threat posed to freedom of expression by high levels of compensation in civil defamation cases.

The report also highlights concerns among Portuguese legal experts and journalists as to whether the country’s courts give proper weight to freedom of expression when considering defamation cases. In part, these concerns were motivated by what appeared to be an unusually high number of ECHR cases in which Portugal was condemned for violating Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

IPI research, highlighted in the report, shows that between January 2005 and January 2015, Portugal was condemned 18 times in Art. 10 cases.
http://ipi.freemedia.at/newssview/article/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal.html

Might be worth you reading the article you post
This seems to be entirely a criticism of the press being gagged in Portugal
Which just about fits in with the remnants of fascism

[Alice Purjorick]

Might be worth you reading the article you post
This seems to be entirely a criticism of the press being gagged in Portugal
Which just about fits in with the remnants of fascism

I rather think that was the point of the post.

[G-Unit]

Might be worth you reading the article you post
This seems to be entirely a criticism of the press being gagged in Portugal
Which just about fits in with the remnants of fascism

You said;

'I'm rather glad we don't live in a country like Portugal where reputations can be totally trashed by people being able to say what they like even if it is untrue'

The article I posted says that's not true. People can't say what they like. You can't have it both ways, even though I'm sure you'll try.

This bit is interesting;

the threat posed to freedom of expression by high levels of compensation in civil defamation cases.

The article is mostly about criminal defamation, which is seen as an outdated concept, but civil defamation is also criticised for stifling freedom of expression.

[Mr Gray]

You said;

'I'm rather glad we don't live in a country like Portugal where reputations can be totally trashed by people being able to say what they like even if it is untrue'

The article I posted says that's not true. People can't say what they like. You can't have it both ways, even though I'm sure you'll try.

This bit is interesting;

the threat posed to freedom of expression by high levels of compensation in civil defamation cases.

The article is mostly about criminal defamation, which is seen as an outdated concept, but civil defamation is also criticised for stifling freedom of expression.

We would need to look at the cases that have been referred to the ECHR...is it powerful figures that are protected in portugal...from the look of the mccann judgement and the difficulty murat had in his defamation case  the piece you quoted makes no sense

[stephen25000]

We would need to look at the cases that have been referred to the ECHR...is it powerful figures that are protected in portugal...from the look of the mccann judgement and the difficulty murat had in his defamation case  the piece you quoted makes no sense

Powerful figures ?

So would that be the Illuminati then. *&*%£

[mercury]

Powerful figures ?

So would that be the Illuminati then. *&*%£

They dont exist

[sadie]

They dont exist

So YOU actually KNOW that, do you?

How?

[mercury]

So YOU actually KNOW that, do you?

How?

Maybe i should have qualified my post, what YOU think the illumanti is, a conspiracy theory, to do with a load of evil people controlling the world, it is not,do more research dear, the illumaniti were part or creators of the enlightenment a w centuries ago, a positive force and the antithesis of the modern bunkum about it

[Miss Taken Identity]

They dont exist

Oh they do in some peoples heads along with: leering reptiles and aliens and fearies as the bottom of the garden who are controlling us.  well damn the tinternet thingy is hitting back.

[Wonderfulspam]

The Inebriati & Knights Tiplar.

They were there in the background, at every major historical event, gently swaying from side to side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIv96reVlAE