The proposed legislation would require comment moderation for all blogs

What proposed legislation? There is no proposed legislation. This is the very first stage of a consultation for reform to the libel law that we have been campaigning for.

Bloggers are currently in very serious trouble if someone with money makes a suit against their hosts, domain registrars or similar. The Govt has promised to start a consultation process. The anti-censorship campaigning organisations have been pushing for this for some time, as have a number of bloggers (especially those that have been in trouble with the farcicle laws as they stand).

So I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, but this consultation isn’t going to require anything, it’s only just started.

Currently, without pre-moderation, all three of your points below stand under law as is. If you pre moderate, they don’t, as you’re personally publishing them.

In your point 2, you observe that many bloggers are paranoid, especially about the EU. That’s true. Doesn’t mean their paranoia is in any way justified.

As you think there is proposed legislation, then you have no understanding of the legislative process and haven’t read what’s been said. Padraig, the author of this post, knows exactly what he’s talking about, his organisation is one of the primary anti-censorship campaigns in the country.

Climb down, get involved with the consultation, and don’t try to block something that we need.

1. The proposed legislation would require comment moderation for all blogs, many of which flourish on the basis of near instantaneous response. Bloggers should not be liable for comments made unless they meet the following criteria:

- The comments are slanderous.

- The blogger has been given reasonable notice to remove the comments.

-The blogger has refused to do so.

Going beyond this would be an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech.

2. Many bloggers are touchy as hell about any changes to the system because charming groups such as the EU keep proposing laws that would, in the wrong hands, (and who is to say which those are), result in it being a crime to write articles that the legislators disagreed with.

That the the first problem is with the currently debated legislation and the second with legislation that is, for the moment, in abeyance, is no reason not to fight tooth and nail against the silencing of independent voices.