Worrying logic from some of those leaving comments on the Mail website.
An allegation of defamation should be determined in a court. That's why we have courts. The alternative is a system of arbitrary censorship where anyone, guilty or not of an allegation, can simply shout "libel" to gag critics.
The plaintiff, Mr Payam Tamiz, was a prospective Conservative candidate. Just not cut out for the job to have such a hissy-fit over some shallow blog comments on a back water of the internet.
The sad thing is that very few people had heard of Mr Tamiz before this case. And even fewer would have read the defamatory comments made about him.
But now, because of the publicity, millions of us will read the outrageous and disgusting blog comments since they are recorded for posterity in Mr Justice Eady's judgment
[1]
Certainly no one can accuse Mr Justice Eady of being a stuffy old fart.... "Nowadays, I do not suppose that..sleeping with girls at houseparties..would be taken to be defamatory by "right-thinking members of society"..
Why am I never invited to these "houseparties" ?!
cheers, a
[1]
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/449.html