<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_14_0022251</id>
	<title>In the UK, a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255512480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Several readers wrote to us about the situation in the UK that saw the Guardian newspaper forbidden by a judge from reporting a question in UK parliament. The press's freedom to do so has been fought for since at least 1688 and fully acknowledged since the 19th century. At issue was a <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmordbk2/91013o02.htm">matter of public record</a> &mdash; but the country's libel laws meant that the newspaper could not inform the public of what parliament was up to. The question concerned the oil trading company Trafigura, the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-african-pollution-disaster">toxic</a> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8259765.stm">waste</a> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/call-for-murder-charges-to-be-brought-over-toxic-dumping-1789421.html">scandal</a> they are involved in, and their generous use of libel lawyers to silence those who would report on the whole thing. After tweeters and bloggers <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament#0">shouted about Trafigura all over the Internet</a>, the company's lawyers agreed to drop the gag request.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Several readers wrote to us about the situation in the UK that saw the Guardian newspaper forbidden by a judge from reporting a question in UK parliament .
The press 's freedom to do so has been fought for since at least 1688 and fully acknowledged since the 19th century .
At issue was a matter of public record    but the country 's libel laws meant that the newspaper could not inform the public of what parliament was up to .
The question concerned the oil trading company Trafigura , the toxic waste scandal they are involved in , and their generous use of libel lawyers to silence those who would report on the whole thing .
After tweeters and bloggers shouted about Trafigura all over the Internet , the company 's lawyers agreed to drop the gag request .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several readers wrote to us about the situation in the UK that saw the Guardian newspaper forbidden by a judge from reporting a question in UK parliament.
The press's freedom to do so has been fought for since at least 1688 and fully acknowledged since the 19th century.
At issue was a matter of public record — but the country's libel laws meant that the newspaper could not inform the public of what parliament was up to.
The question concerned the oil trading company Trafigura, the toxic waste scandal they are involved in, and their generous use of libel lawyers to silence those who would report on the whole thing.
After tweeters and bloggers shouted about Trafigura all over the Internet, the company's lawyers agreed to drop the gag request.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746371</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255541820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Who's correctness?</i> </p><p>Obviously not your grammatical correctness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's correctness ?
Obviously not your grammatical correctness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Who's correctness?
Obviously not your grammatical correctness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742723</id>
	<title>Note on right to freedom of speech</title>
	<author>twoshortplanks</author>
	<datestamp>1255521600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>UK Citizens have protection under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Convention\_on\_Human\_Rights" title="wikipedia.org">European Convention on Human Rights</a> [wikipedia.org], which was to some extent enshrined directly into UK law with the <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga\_19980042\_en\_1" title="opsi.gov.uk">Human Rights Act</a> [opsi.gov.uk].  This offers freedom of expression as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article\_10\_of\_the\_European\_Convention\_on\_Human\_Rights" title="wikipedia.org">Article 10</a> [wikipedia.org], but this does allow the state to restrict speech "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others".</htmltext>
<tokenext>UK Citizens have protection under the European Convention on Human Rights [ wikipedia.org ] , which was to some extent enshrined directly into UK law with the Human Rights Act [ opsi.gov.uk ] .
This offers freedom of expression as Article 10 [ wikipedia.org ] , but this does allow the state to restrict speech " for the protection of the reputation or rights of others " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UK Citizens have protection under the European Convention on Human Rights [wikipedia.org], which was to some extent enshrined directly into UK law with the Human Rights Act [opsi.gov.uk].
This offers freedom of expression as Article 10 [wikipedia.org], but this does allow the state to restrict speech "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742751</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255522140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truly most appalling silence in the media is about Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz (now deceased) and his libel tourism to prevent any comment, anywhere in the world, about funding of terrorism that may have passed through charities (Muwafaq, or Blessed Relief, Foundation) controlled by him.</p><p>This extended to the pulping of "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It" by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld as a result of a libel case brought in Britain for a book published by a US citizen in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truly most appalling silence in the media is about Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz ( now deceased ) and his libel tourism to prevent any comment , anywhere in the world , about funding of terrorism that may have passed through charities ( Muwafaq , or Blessed Relief , Foundation ) controlled by him.This extended to the pulping of " Funding Evil : How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It " by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld as a result of a libel case brought in Britain for a book published by a US citizen in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truly most appalling silence in the media is about Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz (now deceased) and his libel tourism to prevent any comment, anywhere in the world, about funding of terrorism that may have passed through charities (Muwafaq, or Blessed Relief, Foundation) controlled by him.This extended to the pulping of "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It" by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld as a result of a libel case brought in Britain for a book published by a US citizen in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742541</id>
	<title>Britain - Libel capital of the work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255518420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully this will motivate the courts and Parliament to do something about the problem of people coming to our country and using our courts to solve their petty grievances due to our ridiculous libel laws. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel\_tourism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wikipedia article on libel tourism</a> [wikipedia.org] is particularly good in this regard.

A lawyer on Newsnight (available on iplayer) last night listed the example of a Ukrainian business man who was suing a Ukrainian website for libel in the British courts under the justification that there happened to be some people in the UK who can read Ukrainian. This sort of stuff has simply got to stop.

To help, sign the petition on the <a href="http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PressFreedom/" title="number10.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">the no.10 website</a> [number10.gov.uk] and the <a href="http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/gdiangag" title="38degrees.org.uk" rel="nofollow">website 38 degrees </a> [38degrees.org.uk] is also running a campaign.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this will motivate the courts and Parliament to do something about the problem of people coming to our country and using our courts to solve their petty grievances due to our ridiculous libel laws .
The wikipedia article on libel tourism [ wikipedia.org ] is particularly good in this regard .
A lawyer on Newsnight ( available on iplayer ) last night listed the example of a Ukrainian business man who was suing a Ukrainian website for libel in the British courts under the justification that there happened to be some people in the UK who can read Ukrainian .
This sort of stuff has simply got to stop .
To help , sign the petition on the the no.10 website [ number10.gov.uk ] and the website 38 degrees [ 38degrees.org.uk ] is also running a campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this will motivate the courts and Parliament to do something about the problem of people coming to our country and using our courts to solve their petty grievances due to our ridiculous libel laws.
The wikipedia article on libel tourism [wikipedia.org] is particularly good in this regard.
A lawyer on Newsnight (available on iplayer) last night listed the example of a Ukrainian business man who was suing a Ukrainian website for libel in the British courts under the justification that there happened to be some people in the UK who can read Ukrainian.
This sort of stuff has simply got to stop.
To help, sign the petition on the the no.10 website [number10.gov.uk] and the website 38 degrees  [38degrees.org.uk] is also running a campaign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742555</id>
	<title>Minton report</title>
	<author>GammaStream</author>
	<datestamp>1255518540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I should also mention that this question was raised in parliament to link the Minton report to Trafigura. The Minton report is still the subject of an injunction and it's contents can not be mentioned at this moment by the UK press but can be found on
<a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton\_report:\_Trafigura\_Toxic\_dumping\_along\_the\_Ivory\_Coast\_broke\_EU\_regulations,\_14\_Sep\_2006l" title="wikileaks.org" rel="nofollow">wikileaks.</a> [wikileaks.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I should also mention that this question was raised in parliament to link the Minton report to Trafigura .
The Minton report is still the subject of an injunction and it 's contents can not be mentioned at this moment by the UK press but can be found on wikileaks .
[ wikileaks.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should also mention that this question was raised in parliament to link the Minton report to Trafigura.
The Minton report is still the subject of an injunction and it's contents can not be mentioned at this moment by the UK press but can be found on
wikileaks.
[wikileaks.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742507</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255518000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity). It's not something to entirely rely on, no, but it's difficult to argue that it doesn't help.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful ( provided you do n't mind the obscurity ) .
It 's not something to entirely rely on , no , but it 's difficult to argue that it does n't help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context


Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity).
It's not something to entirely rely on, no, but it's difficult to argue that it doesn't help.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742825</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>teh kurisu</author>
	<datestamp>1255523280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not the injunction against the Guardian that prevented the Minton report from being published.  The problem is that the injunction also prevented the newspaper from revealing that an injunction had been served at all..  This is why, according to the opinion of Trafigura's lawyers, the Guardian could not report on this particular parliamentary question - because it revealed the fact that an injunction was in place.</p><p>Injunctions are a necessary part of the legal system, as you've pointed out.  The prevention of reporting that an injunction is in place is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not the injunction against the Guardian that prevented the Minton report from being published .
The problem is that the injunction also prevented the newspaper from revealing that an injunction had been served at all.. This is why , according to the opinion of Trafigura 's lawyers , the Guardian could not report on this particular parliamentary question - because it revealed the fact that an injunction was in place.Injunctions are a necessary part of the legal system , as you 've pointed out .
The prevention of reporting that an injunction is in place is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not the injunction against the Guardian that prevented the Minton report from being published.
The problem is that the injunction also prevented the newspaper from revealing that an injunction had been served at all..  This is why, according to the opinion of Trafigura's lawyers, the Guardian could not report on this particular parliamentary question - because it revealed the fact that an injunction was in place.Injunctions are a necessary part of the legal system, as you've pointed out.
The prevention of reporting that an injunction is in place is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746727</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1255543500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a good idea about the motorbike, I might put it on mine.<br>
&nbsp; <br>My old car had the ignition wires going through a switch hidden under the dash. A couple of times I forgot to mention that to people who borrowed my car, and later had to explain that; yes, it does run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a good idea about the motorbike , I might put it on mine .
  My old car had the ignition wires going through a switch hidden under the dash .
A couple of times I forgot to mention that to people who borrowed my car , and later had to explain that ; yes , it does run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a good idea about the motorbike, I might put it on mine.
  My old car had the ignition wires going through a switch hidden under the dash.
A couple of times I forgot to mention that to people who borrowed my car, and later had to explain that; yes, it does run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743297</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1255528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security through obscurity does work until it is no longer obscure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....If you still had your bike, I could now steal it,  If I could be bothered I could break into your machine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... now I know</p><p>--<br>The plural of box is boxen....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security through obscurity does work until it is no longer obscure .... ....If you still had your bike , I could now steal it , If I could be bothered I could break into your machine .... now I know--The plural of box is boxen... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security through obscurity does work until it is no longer obscure .... ....If you still had your bike, I could now steal it,  If I could be bothered I could break into your machine .... now I know--The plural of box is boxen....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747135</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1255545420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speech</p></div></blockquote><p>brIin light of this event, it's about time for one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>note to non-UK readers , there is no UK constitution to protect free speechbrIin light of this event , it 's about time for one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speechbrIin light of this event, it's about time for one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743355</id>
	<title>Point of information for non Brit slashdotters...</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1255528680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a story about the law as it applies in England and Wales. Scotland <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland</a> [wikipedia.org] (that famous non-sovereign state -slashdot anon) has an entirely separate and distinctly different, Roman based system of law and no real equivalent of the infamous Carter Ruck (billed as a "British Law Firm" whatever that is) and subsequently no really litigious use of libel laws on the magnitude of those in England. <br>Scottish Judges are renowned for making anyone guilty of contempt spend at least one night in the cells - famous editors and briefs included. Much to the amusement to the mainly retired and unemployed audience in the public gallery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a story about the law as it applies in England and Wales .
Scotland http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland [ wikipedia.org ] ( that famous non-sovereign state -slashdot anon ) has an entirely separate and distinctly different , Roman based system of law and no real equivalent of the infamous Carter Ruck ( billed as a " British Law Firm " whatever that is ) and subsequently no really litigious use of libel laws on the magnitude of those in England .
Scottish Judges are renowned for making anyone guilty of contempt spend at least one night in the cells - famous editors and briefs included .
Much to the amusement to the mainly retired and unemployed audience in the public gallery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a story about the law as it applies in England and Wales.
Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland [wikipedia.org] (that famous non-sovereign state -slashdot anon) has an entirely separate and distinctly different, Roman based system of law and no real equivalent of the infamous Carter Ruck (billed as a "British Law Firm" whatever that is) and subsequently no really litigious use of libel laws on the magnitude of those in England.
Scottish Judges are renowned for making anyone guilty of contempt spend at least one night in the cells - famous editors and briefs included.
Much to the amusement to the mainly retired and unemployed audience in the public gallery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742571</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>wickerprints</author>
	<datestamp>1255518780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The distinction is easy to discern.  One deals with a matter of public welfare.  The other does not.</p><p>To be more precise, when any legal entity engages in activities or behaviors that are damaging or potentially damaging to members of the public, and such actions or the judgment demonstrated by them continue to pose a threat to the welfare of others, then there exists a right to inform and be informed.  Those that may be harmed by the acts of another have a right to know of the danger.  The revelation of salacious details regarding an individual's affairs purely on the basis of their celebrity clearly does not withstand this criterion, and therefore the right to privacy supersedes any privilege of the public interest to be informed of such matters.</p><p>However, note that the application of this particular standard is not based on an individual's celebrity--for example, Mel Gibson caught driving drunk may be reportable, because his actions pose a threat to other drivers.  Reporting Chris Brown as having assaulted Rihanna may be acceptable.  But posting pictures of the victim's abuse is not, because the release of that information is not pertinent to preventing others from coming to harm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The distinction is easy to discern .
One deals with a matter of public welfare .
The other does not.To be more precise , when any legal entity engages in activities or behaviors that are damaging or potentially damaging to members of the public , and such actions or the judgment demonstrated by them continue to pose a threat to the welfare of others , then there exists a right to inform and be informed .
Those that may be harmed by the acts of another have a right to know of the danger .
The revelation of salacious details regarding an individual 's affairs purely on the basis of their celebrity clearly does not withstand this criterion , and therefore the right to privacy supersedes any privilege of the public interest to be informed of such matters.However , note that the application of this particular standard is not based on an individual 's celebrity--for example , Mel Gibson caught driving drunk may be reportable , because his actions pose a threat to other drivers .
Reporting Chris Brown as having assaulted Rihanna may be acceptable .
But posting pictures of the victim 's abuse is not , because the release of that information is not pertinent to preventing others from coming to harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The distinction is easy to discern.
One deals with a matter of public welfare.
The other does not.To be more precise, when any legal entity engages in activities or behaviors that are damaging or potentially damaging to members of the public, and such actions or the judgment demonstrated by them continue to pose a threat to the welfare of others, then there exists a right to inform and be informed.
Those that may be harmed by the acts of another have a right to know of the danger.
The revelation of salacious details regarding an individual's affairs purely on the basis of their celebrity clearly does not withstand this criterion, and therefore the right to privacy supersedes any privilege of the public interest to be informed of such matters.However, note that the application of this particular standard is not based on an individual's celebrity--for example, Mel Gibson caught driving drunk may be reportable, because his actions pose a threat to other drivers.
Reporting Chris Brown as having assaulted Rihanna may be acceptable.
But posting pictures of the victim's abuse is not, because the release of that information is not pertinent to preventing others from coming to harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742599</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1255519440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a <b>British</b> court...</p></div><p>Where were the comments posted? This isn't clear from your post.<br> <br>If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court? Seems like we're both as bad as each other...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company , but in a British court...Where were the comments posted ?
This is n't clear from your post .
If they were posted on an English website , hosted in England , how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court ?
Seems like we 're both as bad as each other.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court...Where were the comments posted?
This isn't clear from your post.
If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court?
Seems like we're both as bad as each other...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742833</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1255523340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The idiot <b>judge</b> then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idiot judge then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statementsFixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idiot judge then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statementsFixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742529</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>tangent3</author>
	<datestamp>1255518240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking about parliament here, not a court case. It's accepted that some court cases can be sealed by court order, but parliament?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about parliament here , not a court case .
It 's accepted that some court cases can be sealed by court order , but parliament ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about parliament here, not a court case.
It's accepted that some court cases can be sealed by court order, but parliament?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747465</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>Rayonic</author>
	<datestamp>1255546920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress? No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms; in this case, the responsibility to get the facts right.</p></div><p>You've got that totally backwards.  UK libel laws are famously unconcerned about the truth.  The plaintiff merely has to demonstrate that harm was done.  Whereas in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against an accusation of libel.</p><p>Somebody above gave a good link about Libel Tourism. I advise you read it and wonder why your country is the #1 "tourist" destination:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel\_tourism" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel\_tourism</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress ?
No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting " Fire !
" in a crowded cinema .
England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms ; in this case , the responsibility to get the facts right.You 've got that totally backwards .
UK libel laws are famously unconcerned about the truth .
The plaintiff merely has to demonstrate that harm was done .
Whereas in the US , the truth is an absolute defense against an accusation of libel.Somebody above gave a good link about Libel Tourism .
I advise you read it and wonder why your country is the # 1 " tourist " destination : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel \ _tourism [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress?
No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting "Fire!
" in a crowded cinema.
England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms; in this case, the responsibility to get the facts right.You've got that totally backwards.
UK libel laws are famously unconcerned about the truth.
The plaintiff merely has to demonstrate that harm was done.
Whereas in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against an accusation of libel.Somebody above gave a good link about Libel Tourism.
I advise you read it and wonder why your country is the #1 "tourist" destination:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel\_tourism [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745671</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1255539000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with your post is that I find it <i>incorrect</i>. I also find it amusing that you somehow think it is better for the courts to decide what is "correct" (assuming correctness is even a consideration for the courts which doesn't appear to be the case) than not. And please continue complaining about US "snake oil" even though the company involved in suppressing media reports, Trafigura apparently is peddling its own brand of snake oil and using the courts in an "incorrect" way.<br> <br>

I must admit to being a bit puzzled. You're basically saying "Sure we're stupid, but not like the Yanks." That's a self-defeating argument and if I'm permitted here to be <i>correct</i> a wee bit idiotic. You seem like a smart guy, maybe you could, you know thinking about it and all, come up with a real argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with your post is that I find it incorrect .
I also find it amusing that you somehow think it is better for the courts to decide what is " correct " ( assuming correctness is even a consideration for the courts which does n't appear to be the case ) than not .
And please continue complaining about US " snake oil " even though the company involved in suppressing media reports , Trafigura apparently is peddling its own brand of snake oil and using the courts in an " incorrect " way .
I must admit to being a bit puzzled .
You 're basically saying " Sure we 're stupid , but not like the Yanks .
" That 's a self-defeating argument and if I 'm permitted here to be correct a wee bit idiotic .
You seem like a smart guy , maybe you could , you know thinking about it and all , come up with a real argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with your post is that I find it incorrect.
I also find it amusing that you somehow think it is better for the courts to decide what is "correct" (assuming correctness is even a consideration for the courts which doesn't appear to be the case) than not.
And please continue complaining about US "snake oil" even though the company involved in suppressing media reports, Trafigura apparently is peddling its own brand of snake oil and using the courts in an "incorrect" way.
I must admit to being a bit puzzled.
You're basically saying "Sure we're stupid, but not like the Yanks.
" That's a self-defeating argument and if I'm permitted here to be correct a wee bit idiotic.
You seem like a smart guy, maybe you could, you know thinking about it and all, come up with a real argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746329</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1255541580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything is outside British soil.</p><p>The argument used by the court to claim jurisdiction over this is that said comment can be viewed by a person in the UK.</p><p>Any website can be viewed from any physical location in the world via the Internet, so the court is basically claiming jurisdiction over any potentially libelous comments posted on the Internet anywhere in the world.</p><p>If you add into the mix things like extradition agreements (with the UK) and some of the tools created after 9/11 to freeze bank accounts anywhere in the world, the implications are staggering<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything is outside British soil.The argument used by the court to claim jurisdiction over this is that said comment can be viewed by a person in the UK.Any website can be viewed from any physical location in the world via the Internet , so the court is basically claiming jurisdiction over any potentially libelous comments posted on the Internet anywhere in the world.If you add into the mix things like extradition agreements ( with the UK ) and some of the tools created after 9/11 to freeze bank accounts anywhere in the world , the implications are staggering .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything is outside British soil.The argument used by the court to claim jurisdiction over this is that said comment can be viewed by a person in the UK.Any website can be viewed from any physical location in the world via the Internet, so the court is basically claiming jurisdiction over any potentially libelous comments posted on the Internet anywhere in the world.If you add into the mix things like extradition agreements (with the UK) and some of the tools created after 9/11 to freeze bank accounts anywhere in the world, the implications are staggering ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742769</id>
	<title>Re:One down, an unknown number to go.</title>
	<author>Bazzargh</author>
	<datestamp>1255522500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PQ about Trafigura everyone was twittering was Q61, Q62 was in fact the one mentioned in that Private Eye editorial:<br><em>Q62: Paul Farrelly  (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.</em></p><p>With a bit of luck tomorrow we will hear how many of these things have been issued (or at least, get told when we will be told)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PQ about Trafigura everyone was twittering was Q61 , Q62 was in fact the one mentioned in that Private Eye editorial : Q62 : Paul Farrelly ( Newcastle-under-Lyme ) : To ask the Secretary of State for Justice , if he will ( a ) collect and ( b ) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.With a bit of luck tomorrow we will hear how many of these things have been issued ( or at least , get told when we will be told )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PQ about Trafigura everyone was twittering was Q61, Q62 was in fact the one mentioned in that Private Eye editorial:Q62: Paul Farrelly  (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.With a bit of luck tomorrow we will hear how many of these things have been issued (or at least, get told when we will be told)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749201</id>
	<title>Just to make it worse</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1255511160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to make matters worse, the toxin in question was hydrogen sulphide, a well understood toxin whose presence is obvious by the rotten egg smell and easily destroyed. The whole problem can be traced down to placing practically no value on human life. Honestly they should be up on murder charges rather than just arguing about if they do or do not have a civil liability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to make matters worse , the toxin in question was hydrogen sulphide , a well understood toxin whose presence is obvious by the rotten egg smell and easily destroyed .
The whole problem can be traced down to placing practically no value on human life .
Honestly they should be up on murder charges rather than just arguing about if they do or do not have a civil liability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to make matters worse, the toxin in question was hydrogen sulphide, a well understood toxin whose presence is obvious by the rotten egg smell and easily destroyed.
The whole problem can be traced down to placing practically no value on human life.
Honestly they should be up on murder charges rather than just arguing about if they do or do not have a civil liability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467</id>
	<title>Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Twitter had nothing to do with this. Yes there was a lot of  inconsequential twittering about this, but the reason the injunction was lifted was that reputable newspapers outside the UK were carrying the story. Since they were immune from the injunction - and their content was available in Britain, the injunction became pointless and (just like with the Spycatcher book, which was banned in Britain, but freely available in other english-speaking countries, or terrorist plots which were censored in the UK but freely reported by the NYT) were not serving the purpose of stopping british peopole from finding out the truth.
<p>
British libel laws are a travesty. To the point where half a dozen US states, including California, have had to pass laws preventing UK libel judgements  from inhibiting free speech. There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a <b>British</b> court - as the penalties handed down in British courts are so heavy, and litigation costs so high, that it's financial ruin for a defendant to attempt to defend themselves, even if they are successful.
</p><p>
So much for free speech in Britain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter had nothing to do with this .
Yes there was a lot of inconsequential twittering about this , but the reason the injunction was lifted was that reputable newspapers outside the UK were carrying the story .
Since they were immune from the injunction - and their content was available in Britain , the injunction became pointless and ( just like with the Spycatcher book , which was banned in Britain , but freely available in other english-speaking countries , or terrorist plots which were censored in the UK but freely reported by the NYT ) were not serving the purpose of stopping british peopole from finding out the truth .
British libel laws are a travesty .
To the point where half a dozen US states , including California , have had to pass laws preventing UK libel judgements from inhibiting free speech .
There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company , but in a British court - as the penalties handed down in British courts are so heavy , and litigation costs so high , that it 's financial ruin for a defendant to attempt to defend themselves , even if they are successful .
So much for free speech in Britain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter had nothing to do with this.
Yes there was a lot of  inconsequential twittering about this, but the reason the injunction was lifted was that reputable newspapers outside the UK were carrying the story.
Since they were immune from the injunction - and their content was available in Britain, the injunction became pointless and (just like with the Spycatcher book, which was banned in Britain, but freely available in other english-speaking countries, or terrorist plots which were censored in the UK but freely reported by the NYT) were not serving the purpose of stopping british peopole from finding out the truth.
British libel laws are a travesty.
To the point where half a dozen US states, including California, have had to pass laws preventing UK libel judgements  from inhibiting free speech.
There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court - as the penalties handed down in British courts are so heavy, and litigation costs so high, that it's financial ruin for a defendant to attempt to defend themselves, even if they are successful.
So much for free speech in Britain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742817</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1255523160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack, it's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency. It's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.</p></div><p>You searched for and found them?  You read the kind of newspapers/magazines/websites that reproduced the pictures?  You seem to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack , it 's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency .
It 's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.You searched for and found them ?
You read the kind of newspapers/magazines/websites that reproduced the pictures ?
You seem to be part of the problem , not part of the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack, it's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency.
It's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.You searched for and found them?
You read the kind of newspapers/magazines/websites that reproduced the pictures?
You seem to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743833</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1255531320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how <a href="http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/090923.html" title="sheldoncomics.com">a recent Sheldon comic</a> [sheldoncomics.com] described British libel laws:</p><p>Sheldon: "British libel laws are the worst! A fat-head can sue you for callin' him a fat-head, even when it's demonstrable in court that he's a total and complete fat-head... even to OTHER fat-heads!"</p><p>Arthur: "What? No way. Then how do they call out fat-heads in Britain?"</p><p>Sheldon: "The nation suffers in silence."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how a recent Sheldon comic [ sheldoncomics.com ] described British libel laws : Sheldon : " British libel laws are the worst !
A fat-head can sue you for callin ' him a fat-head , even when it 's demonstrable in court that he 's a total and complete fat-head... even to OTHER fat-heads !
" Arthur : " What ?
No way .
Then how do they call out fat-heads in Britain ?
" Sheldon : " The nation suffers in silence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how a recent Sheldon comic [sheldoncomics.com] described British libel laws:Sheldon: "British libel laws are the worst!
A fat-head can sue you for callin' him a fat-head, even when it's demonstrable in court that he's a total and complete fat-head... even to OTHER fat-heads!
"Arthur: "What?
No way.
Then how do they call out fat-heads in Britain?
"Sheldon: "The nation suffers in silence.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383</id>
	<title>Simon Singh</title>
	<author>Bifurcati</author>
	<datestamp>1255516500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now if Simon Singh could just win <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/" title="senseaboutscience.org.uk">his case</a> [senseaboutscience.org.uk], then maybe the world will move one step closer to free and open speech. Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context (*), and the more knowledge one has the better decisions one can make.

<p>(*) Counterexamples welcome...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if Simon Singh could just win his case [ senseaboutscience.org.uk ] , then maybe the world will move one step closer to free and open speech .
Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context ( * ) , and the more knowledge one has the better decisions one can make .
( * ) Counterexamples welcome.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if Simon Singh could just win his case [senseaboutscience.org.uk], then maybe the world will move one step closer to free and open speech.
Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context (*), and the more knowledge one has the better decisions one can make.
(*) Counterexamples welcome...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745287</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>GammaStream</author>
	<datestamp>1255537380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a <b>British</b> court...</p></div><p>Where were the comments posted? This isn't clear from your post.

If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court? Seems like we're both as bad as each other...</p></div><p>This is a case raised by a lawyer as an example on Newsnight, BB2. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Video of this available here.</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company , but in a British court...Where were the comments posted ?
This is n't clear from your post .
If they were posted on an English website , hosted in England , how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court ?
Seems like we 're both as bad as each other...This is a case raised by a lawyer as an example on Newsnight , BB2 .
Video of this available here .
[ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court...Where were the comments posted?
This isn't clear from your post.
If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court?
Seems like we're both as bad as each other...This is a case raised by a lawyer as an example on Newsnight, BB2.
Video of this available here.
[bbc.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749891</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1255514280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity). It's not something to entirely rely on</p></div><p>Oh bullshit.</p><p>Any "security" measure you can't rely on (in general) is not a security measure at all.</p><p>Obscurity is <i>worse</i> than no security at all, because it leads you to believe you're doing something when you're not.  People have a tendency to form an emotional bond to the work they do.  Obscurity tricks these people into believing their measures are effective, and thus when a threat presents itself, <i>they have fooled themselves into believing their ineffective measures have some merit</i>, and thus are less likely to respond in a timely manner.</p><p>Obscurity is not only not helpful, it's actually harmful to security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful ( provided you do n't mind the obscurity ) .
It 's not something to entirely rely onOh bullshit.Any " security " measure you ca n't rely on ( in general ) is not a security measure at all.Obscurity is worse than no security at all , because it leads you to believe you 're doing something when you 're not .
People have a tendency to form an emotional bond to the work they do .
Obscurity tricks these people into believing their measures are effective , and thus when a threat presents itself , they have fooled themselves into believing their ineffective measures have some merit , and thus are less likely to respond in a timely manner.Obscurity is not only not helpful , it 's actually harmful to security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity).
It's not something to entirely rely onOh bullshit.Any "security" measure you can't rely on (in general) is not a security measure at all.Obscurity is worse than no security at all, because it leads you to believe you're doing something when you're not.
People have a tendency to form an emotional bond to the work they do.
Obscurity tricks these people into believing their measures are effective, and thus when a threat presents itself, they have fooled themselves into believing their ineffective measures have some merit, and thus are less likely to respond in a timely manner.Obscurity is not only not helpful, it's actually harmful to security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745955</id>
	<title>Re:Note on right to freedom of speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255540080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right.  The fact is that parliamentarians in most Commonwealth countries can say libelous things in Parliament without repercussion (a special privilege), therefore it's not so straightforward to do news stories based on parliamentary proceedings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
The fact is that parliamentarians in most Commonwealth countries can say libelous things in Parliament without repercussion ( a special privilege ) , therefore it 's not so straightforward to do news stories based on parliamentary proceedings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
The fact is that parliamentarians in most Commonwealth countries can say libelous things in Parliament without repercussion (a special privilege), therefore it's not so straightforward to do news stories based on parliamentary proceedings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743459</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>Pax681</author>
	<datestamp>1255529340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>holy shitarola!<br>
<br>this would be ENGLISH LAW... in an ENGLISH COURT.<br>
<br>see my posts above for the facts on the law in these islands.<br>
in fact i'll help....again...<p><div class="quote"><p>JESUS WEPT... there is no UK law!

let me quote<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...me!

might i point out that there is NO SUCH THING AS BRITISH LAW! really.... no such thing..... you have English law, applicable to England and Wales.... and Scots law , applicable to Scotland and then we have Northern Irish Law the most distinct and unique legal system is Scots Law this notion of "British law" is a fallacy folks.... IS JUST ISN'T SO AND THANKFULLY THIS IS THE CASE!

British law/UK law..... there isn't any.........Three separate , distinct legal jurisdictions and legislatures of which Scots Laws is the most distinctly unique</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>holy shitarola !
this would be ENGLISH LAW... in an ENGLISH COURT .
see my posts above for the facts on the law in these islands .
in fact i 'll help....again...JESUS WEPT... there is no UK law !
let me quote ...me !
might i point out that there is NO SUCH THING AS BRITISH LAW !
really.... no such thing..... you have English law , applicable to England and Wales.... and Scots law , applicable to Scotland and then we have Northern Irish Law the most distinct and unique legal system is Scots Law this notion of " British law " is a fallacy folks.... IS JUST IS N'T SO AND THANKFULLY THIS IS THE CASE !
British law/UK law..... there is n't any.........Three separate , distinct legal jurisdictions and legislatures of which Scots Laws is the most distinctly unique</tokentext>
<sentencetext>holy shitarola!
this would be ENGLISH LAW... in an ENGLISH COURT.
see my posts above for the facts on the law in these islands.
in fact i'll help....again...JESUS WEPT... there is no UK law!
let me quote ...me!
might i point out that there is NO SUCH THING AS BRITISH LAW!
really.... no such thing..... you have English law, applicable to England and Wales.... and Scots law , applicable to Scotland and then we have Northern Irish Law the most distinct and unique legal system is Scots Law this notion of "British law" is a fallacy folks.... IS JUST ISN'T SO AND THANKFULLY THIS IS THE CASE!
British law/UK law..... there isn't any.........Three separate , distinct legal jurisdictions and legislatures of which Scots Laws is the most distinctly unique
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742515</id>
	<title>Another chance for twitter users to feel special</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1255518120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great!  Another victory for democracy, I mean twitter (is there really any difference these days?)  Twitter users must be feeling especially proud today to be a part of something really special.  I mean, how often do you get to say you're a user on a system of millions, and someone else uses that system to accomplish something?  It's like back a few months ago, when twitter helped to overthrow the Iranian government.  They were powerless to resist the constant flow of encouragement and support - at one point, a prominent blogger changed his web page to green in support of the protesters, an event widely cited as the tipping point in the revolution.  Even now, revolutionary courts are handing down death sentences to the enemies of the people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
Another victory for democracy , I mean twitter ( is there really any difference these days ?
) Twitter users must be feeling especially proud today to be a part of something really special .
I mean , how often do you get to say you 're a user on a system of millions , and someone else uses that system to accomplish something ?
It 's like back a few months ago , when twitter helped to overthrow the Iranian government .
They were powerless to resist the constant flow of encouragement and support - at one point , a prominent blogger changed his web page to green in support of the protesters , an event widely cited as the tipping point in the revolution .
Even now , revolutionary courts are handing down death sentences to the enemies of the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!
Another victory for democracy, I mean twitter (is there really any difference these days?
)  Twitter users must be feeling especially proud today to be a part of something really special.
I mean, how often do you get to say you're a user on a system of millions, and someone else uses that system to accomplish something?
It's like back a few months ago, when twitter helped to overthrow the Iranian government.
They were powerless to resist the constant flow of encouragement and support - at one point, a prominent blogger changed his web page to green in support of the protesters, an event widely cited as the tipping point in the revolution.
Even now, revolutionary courts are handing down death sentences to the enemies of the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742551</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>Sparx139</author>
	<datestamp>1255518540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although, the Rihanna leaked photograph may have helped sentencing. Would Chris Brown have recieved the same sentence if the photo hadn't been leaked? <br>I understand where your coming from, but too often domestic abuse is everyone's "dirty little secret". And, when you combine that with the number of celebrities that get away with a slap on the wrist...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although , the Rihanna leaked photograph may have helped sentencing .
Would Chris Brown have recieved the same sentence if the photo had n't been leaked ?
I understand where your coming from , but too often domestic abuse is everyone 's " dirty little secret " .
And , when you combine that with the number of celebrities that get away with a slap on the wrist.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although, the Rihanna leaked photograph may have helped sentencing.
Would Chris Brown have recieved the same sentence if the photo hadn't been leaked?
I understand where your coming from, but too often domestic abuse is everyone's "dirty little secret".
And, when you combine that with the number of celebrities that get away with a slap on the wrist...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742831</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>tomtomtom</author>
	<datestamp>1255523280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm... I don't think it can be that clear-cut though. While I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, clearly it is possible for an MP to use parliamentary absolute privilege to make an end-run around injunctions forbidding reporting - since the newspapers are then free to repeat what an MP says in parliament under the doctrine of qualified privilege. This is, for example, what David Davis did, quite openly, earlier this year when he spoke about the case of Rangzieb Ahmed.</p><p>So I can see why it might make sense to restrict the reporting of that proceeding in parliament - and as far as my understanding goes, English libel law also accepts this as those reporting on proceedings of parliament are only given the protection of "qualified privilege", not "absolute privilege" - effectively my understanding is that they must report these more sensitive parliamentary proceedings in a manner which does not add their own "spin" to the story but simply reports the facts of what was said.</p><p>The fundamental issue is that the concept of injunctions prohibiting publication are at great odds with freedom of speech in the first place, regardless of the involvement of Parliament in this case. I think there's a strong case to be made that the use of injunctions (rather than simply allowing the victim to sue for damages after publication) should be restricted only to cases where there would otherwise be the most severe and irreparable harm. In my mind, this should mean serious (false) allegations against individuals such as falsely claiming that they are a convicted child abuser. Allegations of corporate wrongdoing should almost never qualify.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... I do n't think it can be that clear-cut though .
While I 'm not saying that 's what happened in this case , clearly it is possible for an MP to use parliamentary absolute privilege to make an end-run around injunctions forbidding reporting - since the newspapers are then free to repeat what an MP says in parliament under the doctrine of qualified privilege .
This is , for example , what David Davis did , quite openly , earlier this year when he spoke about the case of Rangzieb Ahmed.So I can see why it might make sense to restrict the reporting of that proceeding in parliament - and as far as my understanding goes , English libel law also accepts this as those reporting on proceedings of parliament are only given the protection of " qualified privilege " , not " absolute privilege " - effectively my understanding is that they must report these more sensitive parliamentary proceedings in a manner which does not add their own " spin " to the story but simply reports the facts of what was said.The fundamental issue is that the concept of injunctions prohibiting publication are at great odds with freedom of speech in the first place , regardless of the involvement of Parliament in this case .
I think there 's a strong case to be made that the use of injunctions ( rather than simply allowing the victim to sue for damages after publication ) should be restricted only to cases where there would otherwise be the most severe and irreparable harm .
In my mind , this should mean serious ( false ) allegations against individuals such as falsely claiming that they are a convicted child abuser .
Allegations of corporate wrongdoing should almost never qualify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... I don't think it can be that clear-cut though.
While I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, clearly it is possible for an MP to use parliamentary absolute privilege to make an end-run around injunctions forbidding reporting - since the newspapers are then free to repeat what an MP says in parliament under the doctrine of qualified privilege.
This is, for example, what David Davis did, quite openly, earlier this year when he spoke about the case of Rangzieb Ahmed.So I can see why it might make sense to restrict the reporting of that proceeding in parliament - and as far as my understanding goes, English libel law also accepts this as those reporting on proceedings of parliament are only given the protection of "qualified privilege", not "absolute privilege" - effectively my understanding is that they must report these more sensitive parliamentary proceedings in a manner which does not add their own "spin" to the story but simply reports the facts of what was said.The fundamental issue is that the concept of injunctions prohibiting publication are at great odds with freedom of speech in the first place, regardless of the involvement of Parliament in this case.
I think there's a strong case to be made that the use of injunctions (rather than simply allowing the victim to sue for damages after publication) should be restricted only to cases where there would otherwise be the most severe and irreparable harm.
In my mind, this should mean serious (false) allegations against individuals such as falsely claiming that they are a convicted child abuser.
Allegations of corporate wrongdoing should almost never qualify.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29751249</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1255522140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a good point, and you put it well. Many times security by obscurity is just fine, if the threat is low enough, and the obscurity is high enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a good point , and you put it well .
Many times security by obscurity is just fine , if the threat is low enough , and the obscurity is high enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a good point, and you put it well.
Many times security by obscurity is just fine, if the threat is low enough, and the obscurity is high enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439</id>
	<title>One down, an unknown number to go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the last issue of Private Eye there are quite a few of these super-injunctions currently being enforced (i.e. injunctions that not only stop you from saying something, but stop you from telling anyone that you've been injuncted).</p><p>I'd like a few more of them to be twittered, at  least so we know that something's being hidden, even if we don't know what it is.</p><p>(and I know injuncted isn't the right word, but I don't know what is)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the last issue of Private Eye there are quite a few of these super-injunctions currently being enforced ( i.e .
injunctions that not only stop you from saying something , but stop you from telling anyone that you 've been injuncted ) .I 'd like a few more of them to be twittered , at least so we know that something 's being hidden , even if we do n't know what it is .
( and I know injuncted is n't the right word , but I do n't know what is )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the last issue of Private Eye there are quite a few of these super-injunctions currently being enforced (i.e.
injunctions that not only stop you from saying something, but stop you from telling anyone that you've been injuncted).I'd like a few more of them to be twittered, at  least so we know that something's being hidden, even if we don't know what it is.
(and I know injuncted isn't the right word, but I don't know what is)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749765</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255513740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century.  A few of us got together and decided, among other things, that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  We wanted to be CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.</p><p>The British didn't believe in this.  They believed in something else, some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.</p><p>It's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it.</p></div><p>My history lessons must have been incorrect then.</p><p>I thought that most of them WERE British</p><p>They only became Americans later.</p><p>Where are you claiming that they came from?.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century .
A few of us got together and decided , among other things , that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights , among which are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .
We wanted to be CITIZENS , not SUBJECTS.The British did n't believe in this .
They believed in something else , some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.It 's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it.My history lessons must have been incorrect then.I thought that most of them WERE BritishThey only became Americans later.Where are you claiming that they came from ? .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century.
A few of us got together and decided, among other things, that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We wanted to be CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.The British didn't believe in this.
They believed in something else, some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.It's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it.My history lessons must have been incorrect then.I thought that most of them WERE BritishThey only became Americans later.Where are you claiming that they came from?.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744789</id>
	<title>Trafigura threatening Norwegians as well</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1255535340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Trafigura\_threats\_to\_Norwegian\_press\_over\_Minton\_report\_exposing\_toxic\_dumping\%2C\_Sep\_2009" title="wikileaks.org">see here</a> [wikileaks.org]<blockquote><div><p>October 12, 2009
Summary
</p><p>
Revealing correspondence between the UK commodities giant Trafigura and the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation over Minton report: Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations, 14 Sep 2006.
</p><p>
Other than the toxic dumping issue and a surrounding criminal case, the correspondence mentions details of a gag order obtained against the UK press, specifically the Guardian:
</p><p>
    Your questions of today do also reveal the fact that you are in possession of a draft, preliminary expert opinion produced by Minton Treharne &amp; Davies Ltd, and that you appear to be ready to disclose information from this report. Trafigura looks very serious upon this, as disclosing any information from this report would be a clear breach of confidentiality and privilege. The report is clearly privileged and confidential and was obtained unlawfully by whoever is responsible for it coming into your possession. Please be aware that on Friday of last week, our clients sought and obtained an injunction in relation to this document and information contained in it against the Guardian newspaper and Persons Unknown, pending a further hearing.</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>see here [ wikileaks.org ] October 12 , 2009 Summary Revealing correspondence between the UK commodities giant Trafigura and the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation over Minton report : Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations , 14 Sep 2006 .
Other than the toxic dumping issue and a surrounding criminal case , the correspondence mentions details of a gag order obtained against the UK press , specifically the Guardian : Your questions of today do also reveal the fact that you are in possession of a draft , preliminary expert opinion produced by Minton Treharne &amp; Davies Ltd , and that you appear to be ready to disclose information from this report .
Trafigura looks very serious upon this , as disclosing any information from this report would be a clear breach of confidentiality and privilege .
The report is clearly privileged and confidential and was obtained unlawfully by whoever is responsible for it coming into your possession .
Please be aware that on Friday of last week , our clients sought and obtained an injunction in relation to this document and information contained in it against the Guardian newspaper and Persons Unknown , pending a further hearing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see here [wikileaks.org]October 12, 2009
Summary

Revealing correspondence between the UK commodities giant Trafigura and the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation over Minton report: Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations, 14 Sep 2006.
Other than the toxic dumping issue and a surrounding criminal case, the correspondence mentions details of a gag order obtained against the UK press, specifically the Guardian:

    Your questions of today do also reveal the fact that you are in possession of a draft, preliminary expert opinion produced by Minton Treharne &amp; Davies Ltd, and that you appear to be ready to disclose information from this report.
Trafigura looks very serious upon this, as disclosing any information from this report would be a clear breach of confidentiality and privilege.
The report is clearly privileged and confidential and was obtained unlawfully by whoever is responsible for it coming into your possession.
Please be aware that on Friday of last week, our clients sought and obtained an injunction in relation to this document and information contained in it against the Guardian newspaper and Persons Unknown, pending a further hearing. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742839</id>
	<title>Re:One down, an unknown number to go.</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1255523520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of "The Truth" (Pratchett) which I paraphrase here because I don't have the book to hand:</p><p>de Worde: "Can I say that you asked me not to say anything about $SUBJECT?"</p><p>"No!"</p><p>de Worde: "OK, I'll say that when I asked you if I could say anything about about your banning me from discussing $SUBJECT you said No..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of " The Truth " ( Pratchett ) which I paraphrase here because I do n't have the book to hand : de Worde : " Can I say that you asked me not to say anything about $ SUBJECT ? " " No !
" de Worde : " OK , I 'll say that when I asked you if I could say anything about about your banning me from discussing $ SUBJECT you said No... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of "The Truth" (Pratchett) which I paraphrase here because I don't have the book to hand:de Worde: "Can I say that you asked me not to say anything about $SUBJECT?""No!
"de Worde: "OK, I'll say that when I asked you if I could say anything about about your banning me from discussing $SUBJECT you said No..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743351</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>Bifurcati</author>
	<datestamp>1255528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I happily stand corrected! Cool examples.

<p>That said, in the bigger picture, I think better decisions can usually be made with more information. That might include by terrorists, however, so whether or not those "better" decisions are in your interest is debatable, but the less restrictions on open speech the better, in general. IMHO!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I happily stand corrected !
Cool examples .
That said , in the bigger picture , I think better decisions can usually be made with more information .
That might include by terrorists , however , so whether or not those " better " decisions are in your interest is debatable , but the less restrictions on open speech the better , in general .
IMHO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I happily stand corrected!
Cool examples.
That said, in the bigger picture, I think better decisions can usually be made with more information.
That might include by terrorists, however, so whether or not those "better" decisions are in your interest is debatable, but the less restrictions on open speech the better, in general.
IMHO!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743015</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>vague disclaimer</author>
	<datestamp>1255525440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Guardian played it cute <b>and</b> used Twitter to do so.<p>

Do you rely on Guido's band of libertarian wonks and hope people stumble upon it on Google - or do you appeal directly to (say) Stephen Fry' 830,000 followers (plus practically every working hack and writer who usually use Twitter as a way to banter away the working day)?</p><p>
It is about <i>distribution</i>, not just publication. The story went from standstill to game-set-match in about 4 hours and that was the Twitter effect. Nowhere near enough people read Guido's ramblings to create that impact that quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Guardian played it cute and used Twitter to do so .
Do you rely on Guido 's band of libertarian wonks and hope people stumble upon it on Google - or do you appeal directly to ( say ) Stephen Fry ' 830,000 followers ( plus practically every working hack and writer who usually use Twitter as a way to banter away the working day ) ?
It is about distribution , not just publication .
The story went from standstill to game-set-match in about 4 hours and that was the Twitter effect .
Nowhere near enough people read Guido 's ramblings to create that impact that quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Guardian played it cute and used Twitter to do so.
Do you rely on Guido's band of libertarian wonks and hope people stumble upon it on Google - or do you appeal directly to (say) Stephen Fry' 830,000 followers (plus practically every working hack and writer who usually use Twitter as a way to banter away the working day)?
It is about distribution, not just publication.
The story went from standstill to game-set-match in about 4 hours and that was the Twitter effect.
Nowhere near enough people read Guido's ramblings to create that impact that quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742757</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1255522320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's absolutely right. Twitter had nothing of consequence to do this whatsoever. This article is just Twitter's insidious marketing dept trying to cash in (again).<br> <br>

The Guardian newspaper actually tried to create the Streisand Effect here. They got a tame MP to table a question in Parliament to expose what was happening. They effectively challenged the libel lawyers to try and stop the reporting of it. And of course the lawyers fell for it. Pretty neat stitch up.<br> <br>

The Guardian then leaked it to the international press and prominent bloggers -- such as Guido Fawkes. Sure people reported it on Twitter too, especially Stephen Fry who is a sock puppet for the Guardian and the left wing, but it wasn't the tweets that changed anything, it was the International press and the reaction in Parliament.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's absolutely right .
Twitter had nothing of consequence to do this whatsoever .
This article is just Twitter 's insidious marketing dept trying to cash in ( again ) .
The Guardian newspaper actually tried to create the Streisand Effect here .
They got a tame MP to table a question in Parliament to expose what was happening .
They effectively challenged the libel lawyers to try and stop the reporting of it .
And of course the lawyers fell for it .
Pretty neat stitch up .
The Guardian then leaked it to the international press and prominent bloggers -- such as Guido Fawkes .
Sure people reported it on Twitter too , especially Stephen Fry who is a sock puppet for the Guardian and the left wing , but it was n't the tweets that changed anything , it was the International press and the reaction in Parliament .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's absolutely right.
Twitter had nothing of consequence to do this whatsoever.
This article is just Twitter's insidious marketing dept trying to cash in (again).
The Guardian newspaper actually tried to create the Streisand Effect here.
They got a tame MP to table a question in Parliament to expose what was happening.
They effectively challenged the libel lawyers to try and stop the reporting of it.
And of course the lawyers fell for it.
Pretty neat stitch up.
The Guardian then leaked it to the international press and prominent bloggers -- such as Guido Fawkes.
Sure people reported it on Twitter too, especially Stephen Fry who is a sock puppet for the Guardian and the left wing, but it wasn't the tweets that changed anything, it was the International press and the reaction in Parliament.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743037</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1255525560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom.</p></div><p>Who's correctness?  Who's values?  Therein lies the rub.</p><p>A system that is fully open always will have issues with 'wrong' theories.  But it protects the good ones too.  I honestly feel what your saying and good peer review is key.  But your idea that openness is a bad thing is flawed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom.Who 's correctness ?
Who 's values ?
Therein lies the rub.A system that is fully open always will have issues with 'wrong ' theories .
But it protects the good ones too .
I honestly feel what your saying and good peer review is key .
But your idea that openness is a bad thing is flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom.Who's correctness?
Who's values?
Therein lies the rub.A system that is fully open always will have issues with 'wrong' theories.
But it protects the good ones too.
I honestly feel what your saying and good peer review is key.
But your idea that openness is a bad thing is flawed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743545</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>ZorbaTHut</author>
	<datestamp>1255529820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with "freedom of correctness" is how many so-called "correct" things later turn out to be incredible lies. Correctness requires someone who can objectively judge whether something is correct, and pretty much the entire history of the world is a repeated, blatant demonstration that nobody really knows what is objectively "correct" or not until - at best - a few decades down the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with " freedom of correctness " is how many so-called " correct " things later turn out to be incredible lies .
Correctness requires someone who can objectively judge whether something is correct , and pretty much the entire history of the world is a repeated , blatant demonstration that nobody really knows what is objectively " correct " or not until - at best - a few decades down the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with "freedom of correctness" is how many so-called "correct" things later turn out to be incredible lies.
Correctness requires someone who can objectively judge whether something is correct, and pretty much the entire history of the world is a repeated, blatant demonstration that nobody really knows what is objectively "correct" or not until - at best - a few decades down the road.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749911</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>arethuza</author>
	<datestamp>1255514400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You believe that the United States doesn't have an aristocracy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You believe that the United States does n't have an aristocracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You believe that the United States doesn't have an aristocracy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>EasyTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1255520280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a counterexample.. two in fact.</p><p>20 years ago my motobike was not stolen, even after the thieves had laboriously sliced a chain and wired the ignition. Why? Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting, eventually they gave up and left. The engine cutting out was down to a obscure little security system I designed, built and fitted myself, killed the ignition for 2 seconds out of every 10 unless a magnet was held in the correct place as the ignition was turned on. The thieves probably never even suspected it was deliberate, they probably thought the bike was a lemon.. which is arguably true<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>My server, which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.</p><p>Both of these work because they are genuinely obscure single implementations. In order to break them the attacker would need to know that it exists, and then spend time analysing the unit to break it. Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence, is the payout (a crummy motorcycle, control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection) worth their time to break it?</p><p>The sort of Security through Obscurity you describe fails because it is identically implemented in millions of devices, ie. It is not really Obscure, it's just a secret. And if you break it in one place you break it in all places. The payout for finding and breaking it is much, much, greater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a counterexample.. two in fact.20 years ago my motobike was not stolen , even after the thieves had laboriously sliced a chain and wired the ignition .
Why ? Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting , eventually they gave up and left .
The engine cutting out was down to a obscure little security system I designed , built and fitted myself , killed the ignition for 2 seconds out of every 10 unless a magnet was held in the correct place as the ignition was turned on .
The thieves probably never even suspected it was deliberate , they probably thought the bike was a lemon.. which is arguably true ; - ) My server , which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.Both of these work because they are genuinely obscure single implementations .
In order to break them the attacker would need to know that it exists , and then spend time analysing the unit to break it .
Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence , is the payout ( a crummy motorcycle , control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection ) worth their time to break it ? The sort of Security through Obscurity you describe fails because it is identically implemented in millions of devices , ie .
It is not really Obscure , it 's just a secret .
And if you break it in one place you break it in all places .
The payout for finding and breaking it is much , much , greater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a counterexample.. two in fact.20 years ago my motobike was not stolen, even after the thieves had laboriously sliced a chain and wired the ignition.
Why? Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting, eventually they gave up and left.
The engine cutting out was down to a obscure little security system I designed, built and fitted myself, killed the ignition for 2 seconds out of every 10 unless a magnet was held in the correct place as the ignition was turned on.
The thieves probably never even suspected it was deliberate, they probably thought the bike was a lemon.. which is arguably true ;-)My server, which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.Both of these work because they are genuinely obscure single implementations.
In order to break them the attacker would need to know that it exists, and then spend time analysing the unit to break it.
Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence, is the payout (a crummy motorcycle, control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection) worth their time to break it?The sort of Security through Obscurity you describe fails because it is identically implemented in millions of devices, ie.
It is not really Obscure, it's just a secret.
And if you break it in one place you break it in all places.
The payout for finding and breaking it is much, much, greater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742681</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>Kryis</author>
	<datestamp>1255520460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a bit of a difference between the scenario you describe and what happened here. The issue here was that a question was published in a public document, detailing a question asked by an MP which was due to be answered later this week by someone else in Parliament. The Guardian obviously wanted to report on this question, and the company involved didn't want the bad press and so tried to get a court order against the newspaper highlighting the question on the grounds that it would be libellous.

The information is (by law) freely available to the public, and noone was prevented from looking at the question, the newspaper just wasn't allowed to draw attention to it. There is no expectation of privacy in Parliament - what goes on is *expected* to be public, which is different from court cases involving children, where they often can't (and don't) name the children involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a bit of a difference between the scenario you describe and what happened here .
The issue here was that a question was published in a public document , detailing a question asked by an MP which was due to be answered later this week by someone else in Parliament .
The Guardian obviously wanted to report on this question , and the company involved did n't want the bad press and so tried to get a court order against the newspaper highlighting the question on the grounds that it would be libellous .
The information is ( by law ) freely available to the public , and noone was prevented from looking at the question , the newspaper just was n't allowed to draw attention to it .
There is no expectation of privacy in Parliament - what goes on is * expected * to be public , which is different from court cases involving children , where they often ca n't ( and do n't ) name the children involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a bit of a difference between the scenario you describe and what happened here.
The issue here was that a question was published in a public document, detailing a question asked by an MP which was due to be answered later this week by someone else in Parliament.
The Guardian obviously wanted to report on this question, and the company involved didn't want the bad press and so tried to get a court order against the newspaper highlighting the question on the grounds that it would be libellous.
The information is (by law) freely available to the public, and noone was prevented from looking at the question, the newspaper just wasn't allowed to draw attention to it.
There is no expectation of privacy in Parliament - what goes on is *expected* to be public, which is different from court cases involving children, where they often can't (and don't) name the children involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742609</id>
	<title>A much repeated "Victory"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much as this is a victory for free speech, and another silly law rendered utterly unenforceable.</p><p>The court injunction seems to be the result of a  hurried meeting between Trafigura and their legal aids in which their options, and the consequences thereof, were not really considered; in particular that stories of businesses involved in toxic waste dumping do not acquire nearly as much interest as stories of Great Britain descending into Orwellian dystopia. (Indeed, I don't recall seeing the story on slashdot about BAE Systems and bribery - a similar, if less environmentally criminal story)</p><p>Had they not pressed for the gag. the BBC (where I read the news, and looked up what was said becoming mildly disappointed it was not of something more substantial) would be limited to a headline on the front page of their website along the lines of "Guardian readers offended by yet another corrupt company"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much as this is a victory for free speech , and another silly law rendered utterly unenforceable.The court injunction seems to be the result of a hurried meeting between Trafigura and their legal aids in which their options , and the consequences thereof , were not really considered ; in particular that stories of businesses involved in toxic waste dumping do not acquire nearly as much interest as stories of Great Britain descending into Orwellian dystopia .
( Indeed , I do n't recall seeing the story on slashdot about BAE Systems and bribery - a similar , if less environmentally criminal story ) Had they not pressed for the gag .
the BBC ( where I read the news , and looked up what was said becoming mildly disappointed it was not of something more substantial ) would be limited to a headline on the front page of their website along the lines of " Guardian readers offended by yet another corrupt company "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much as this is a victory for free speech, and another silly law rendered utterly unenforceable.The court injunction seems to be the result of a  hurried meeting between Trafigura and their legal aids in which their options, and the consequences thereof, were not really considered; in particular that stories of businesses involved in toxic waste dumping do not acquire nearly as much interest as stories of Great Britain descending into Orwellian dystopia.
(Indeed, I don't recall seeing the story on slashdot about BAE Systems and bribery - a similar, if less environmentally criminal story)Had they not pressed for the gag.
the BBC (where I read the news, and looked up what was said becoming mildly disappointed it was not of something more substantial) would be limited to a headline on the front page of their website along the lines of "Guardian readers offended by yet another corrupt company"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745687</id>
	<title>Freedom of speech...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255539060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...as long as it's below 140 characters.</p><p>Just make sure you don't write multiple "tweets" and end up above the 7 lines, or Cardinal Richelieu will come and hang you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...as long as it 's below 140 characters.Just make sure you do n't write multiple " tweets " and end up above the 7 lines , or Cardinal Richelieu will come and hang you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as long as it's below 140 characters.Just make sure you don't write multiple "tweets" and end up above the 7 lines, or Cardinal Richelieu will come and hang you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742961</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1255524900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Celebrities? Everything that is related to "celebrities" is a bastard child of the society based on so called "pursuit of happiness", with the plebs that does not give anything to the society, only demands of "panem et circenses".</p><p>Look in the root. You want freedoms? Eat them with a full spoon now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Celebrities ?
Everything that is related to " celebrities " is a bastard child of the society based on so called " pursuit of happiness " , with the plebs that does not give anything to the society , only demands of " panem et circenses " .Look in the root .
You want freedoms ?
Eat them with a full spoon now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Celebrities?
Everything that is related to "celebrities" is a bastard child of the society based on so called "pursuit of happiness", with the plebs that does not give anything to the society, only demands of "panem et circenses".Look in the root.
You want freedoms?
Eat them with a full spoon now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742671</id>
	<title>Errr...no</title>
	<author>mccalli</author>
	<datestamp>1255520340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Twitter nothing. This morning they were threatened with being held in contempt of Parliament. That's when it dropped.
<br> <br>
Cheers,<br>
Ian</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter nothing .
This morning they were threatened with being held in contempt of Parliament .
That 's when it dropped .
Cheers , Ian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter nothing.
This morning they were threatened with being held in contempt of Parliament.
That's when it dropped.
Cheers,
Ian</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29751359</id>
	<title>Re:One down, an unknown number to go.</title>
	<author>sn00ker</author>
	<datestamp>1255522980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, injucted is valid. I've heard it used more than once by law lecturers while studying commercial law, which I figure is as much validation as anything.
<br>
And if you want even further confirmation, check out <a href="http://www.google.co.nz/#hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;c2coff=1&amp;q=injuncted&amp;meta=&amp;fp=ca63693302203cb0" title="google.co.nz">Google</a> [google.co.nz]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , injucted is valid .
I 've heard it used more than once by law lecturers while studying commercial law , which I figure is as much validation as anything .
And if you want even further confirmation , check out Google [ google.co.nz ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, injucted is valid.
I've heard it used more than once by law lecturers while studying commercial law, which I figure is as much validation as anything.
And if you want even further confirmation, check out Google [google.co.nz]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744259</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255533240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence, is the payout (a crummy motorcycle, control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection) worth their time to break it?</p></div><p>Hmm, that depends. How much porn are we talking about?<br>Nevermind. I've noticed over the years that the average person's collection is average, at best.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My server, which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.</p></div><p>Most of the viruses and spyware I've cleaned off systems was the result of some dumb kid surfing for porn with inadequate security. It wont matter how secure your server is if other computers on your local network are compromised. Thieves go where the money is, and I'm positive your server isn't the payoff they'd be after anyway.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting, eventually they gave up and left.</p></div><p>It's a good thing the thieves didn't just toss your motorbike in the back of a truck.</p><p>I think these are poor examples of security through obscurity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence , is the payout ( a crummy motorcycle , control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection ) worth their time to break it ? Hmm , that depends .
How much porn are we talking about ? Nevermind .
I 've noticed over the years that the average person 's collection is average , at best.My server , which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.Most of the viruses and spyware I 've cleaned off systems was the result of some dumb kid surfing for porn with inadequate security .
It wont matter how secure your server is if other computers on your local network are compromised .
Thieves go where the money is , and I 'm positive your server is n't the payoff they 'd be after anyway.Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting , eventually they gave up and left.It 's a good thing the thieves did n't just toss your motorbike in the back of a truck.I think these are poor examples of security through obscurity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence, is the payout (a crummy motorcycle, control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection) worth their time to break it?Hmm, that depends.
How much porn are we talking about?Nevermind.
I've noticed over the years that the average person's collection is average, at best.My server, which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.Most of the viruses and spyware I've cleaned off systems was the result of some dumb kid surfing for porn with inadequate security.
It wont matter how secure your server is if other computers on your local network are compromised.
Thieves go where the money is, and I'm positive your server isn't the payoff they'd be after anyway.Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting, eventually they gave up and left.It's a good thing the thieves didn't just toss your motorbike in the back of a truck.I think these are poor examples of security through obscurity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</id>
	<title>Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255522440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England\_and\_Wales" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">England and Wales</a> [wikipedia.org] have never had freedom of speech. It cannot be "restored", it was never there.</p><p>We English and Welshmen value <i>correctness</i> above freedom. Now I'll readily admit that sometimes - often, perhaps - megacorporates and in particular the law firm <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter-Ruck" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Carter Fuck</a> [wikipedia.org] try to abuse the system so that they also prevent inconvenient truths from slipping out.</p><p>But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress? No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms; in this case, the responsibility to get the facts right.</p><p>The US gets many things right, and a few things wrong. The USA's bonkers bible-belt religious fundamentalism, for instance, would never be tolerated in England and Wales, as most of it is demonstrably factually <i>incorrect</i>. England and Wales would never suffer from a Kansas-style education system which promoted creationism over science. So, whilst I respect your country's achievements, please don't try to sell me "freedom of speech" as a cure-all. It's no more a cure-all than the snake oil which I understand your forefathers were so keen on selling in the days of your Wild West.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Slashdot headline " restore " is wrong .
England and Wales [ wikipedia.org ] have never had freedom of speech .
It can not be " restored " , it was never there.We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom .
Now I 'll readily admit that sometimes - often , perhaps - megacorporates and in particular the law firm Carter Fuck [ wikipedia.org ] try to abuse the system so that they also prevent inconvenient truths from slipping out.But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress ?
No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting " Fire !
" in a crowded cinema .
England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms ; in this case , the responsibility to get the facts right.The US gets many things right , and a few things wrong .
The USA 's bonkers bible-belt religious fundamentalism , for instance , would never be tolerated in England and Wales , as most of it is demonstrably factually incorrect .
England and Wales would never suffer from a Kansas-style education system which promoted creationism over science .
So , whilst I respect your country 's achievements , please do n't try to sell me " freedom of speech " as a cure-all .
It 's no more a cure-all than the snake oil which I understand your forefathers were so keen on selling in the days of your Wild West .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong.
England and Wales [wikipedia.org] have never had freedom of speech.
It cannot be "restored", it was never there.We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom.
Now I'll readily admit that sometimes - often, perhaps - megacorporates and in particular the law firm Carter Fuck [wikipedia.org] try to abuse the system so that they also prevent inconvenient truths from slipping out.But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress?
No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting "Fire!
" in a crowded cinema.
England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms; in this case, the responsibility to get the facts right.The US gets many things right, and a few things wrong.
The USA's bonkers bible-belt religious fundamentalism, for instance, would never be tolerated in England and Wales, as most of it is demonstrably factually incorrect.
England and Wales would never suffer from a Kansas-style education system which promoted creationism over science.
So, whilst I respect your country's achievements, please don't try to sell me "freedom of speech" as a cure-all.
It's no more a cure-all than the snake oil which I understand your forefathers were so keen on selling in the days of your Wild West.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742619</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, an injuction against one paper is as good as an injuction against all in the UK.  From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/8304908.stm:</p><p>"No injunction was served on the BBC, but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court, so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , an injuction against one paper is as good as an injuction against all in the UK .
From http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk \ _politics/8304908.stm : " No injunction was served on the BBC , but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court , so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, an injuction against one paper is as good as an injuction against all in the UK.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/8304908.stm:"No injunction was served on the BBC, but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court, so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743387</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255528860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correctness in science? Look up "osteopath".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correctness in science ?
Look up " osteopath " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correctness in science?
Look up "osteopath".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747741</id>
	<title>Re:Massive headline FAIL</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1255548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Twitter had nothing to do with this. Yes there was a lot of inconsequential twittering about this, but the reason the injunction was lifted was that reputable newspapers outside the UK were carrying the story.</p></div><p>And how to you think it came to the attention of these other newspapers? Twitter and the blogosphere, of course. What, you expected them to go out and do actual <em>research</em>? No chance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter had nothing to do with this .
Yes there was a lot of inconsequential twittering about this , but the reason the injunction was lifted was that reputable newspapers outside the UK were carrying the story.And how to you think it came to the attention of these other newspapers ?
Twitter and the blogosphere , of course .
What , you expected them to go out and do actual research ?
No chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter had nothing to do with this.
Yes there was a lot of inconsequential twittering about this, but the reason the injunction was lifted was that reputable newspapers outside the UK were carrying the story.And how to you think it came to the attention of these other newspapers?
Twitter and the blogosphere, of course.
What, you expected them to go out and do actual research?
No chance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742567</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1255518780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in my opnion, privacy has become an empty word. It's the result of all-pervasive electronics/communication devices. It's rather pointless trying to turn back the clock methinks. the genie is out of the bottle, information wants to be free, that sort of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in my opnion , privacy has become an empty word .
It 's the result of all-pervasive electronics/communication devices .
It 's rather pointless trying to turn back the clock methinks .
the genie is out of the bottle , information wants to be free , that sort of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my opnion, privacy has become an empty word.
It's the result of all-pervasive electronics/communication devices.
It's rather pointless trying to turn back the clock methinks.
the genie is out of the bottle, information wants to be free, that sort of thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742901</id>
	<title>Basically, a massive failure on all levels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255524300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This multinational Swiss-based company I never heard about, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Trafigura</a> [wikipedia.org], was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Waste\_dumping\_in\_C.C3.B4te\_d.27Ivoire" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">involved with the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast</a> [wikipedia.org] because they contracted some guy there with no hazardous waste disposal expertise to do the job, sickening thousands of people and killing some as well, and then tried to stop publication of a question posed in the House of Commons about the matter, and tried to stop discussion of the fact that legal threats had been used to stop that publication?  Finally, the Dutch press officer of Trafigura is accused of trying to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006\_C\%C3\%B4te\_d'Ivoire\_toxic\_waste\_dump#Wikipedia\_article" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">alter the wikipedia article on the 2006 Ivory Coast dumping event</a> [wikipedia.org] in 2007.</p><p>Just how many layers of evil and failure can they manage to cram into one event?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This multinational Swiss-based company I never heard about , Trafigura [ wikipedia.org ] , was involved with the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast [ wikipedia.org ] because they contracted some guy there with no hazardous waste disposal expertise to do the job , sickening thousands of people and killing some as well , and then tried to stop publication of a question posed in the House of Commons about the matter , and tried to stop discussion of the fact that legal threats had been used to stop that publication ?
Finally , the Dutch press officer of Trafigura is accused of trying to alter the wikipedia article on the 2006 Ivory Coast dumping event [ wikipedia.org ] in 2007.Just how many layers of evil and failure can they manage to cram into one event ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This multinational Swiss-based company I never heard about, Trafigura [wikipedia.org], was involved with the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast [wikipedia.org] because they contracted some guy there with no hazardous waste disposal expertise to do the job, sickening thousands of people and killing some as well, and then tried to stop publication of a question posed in the House of Commons about the matter, and tried to stop discussion of the fact that legal threats had been used to stop that publication?
Finally, the Dutch press officer of Trafigura is accused of trying to alter the wikipedia article on the 2006 Ivory Coast dumping event [wikipedia.org] in 2007.Just how many layers of evil and failure can they manage to cram into one event?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>Hozza</author>
	<datestamp>1255519500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This case is (fortunately) nothing like the examples you give.</p><p>This was about a question in Parliament. i.e. Statements publicly made, by public representatives in a place where freedom of speech is protected to the highest extent in the UK.  The statements were available to anyone who looked at the records.</p><p>The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements, bringing into doubt the entire system of freedom of speech and press in the UK. (note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speech).</p><p>The bloggers (and more importantly, pretty much every other part of the UK media) were entirely right to repeatedly report on the gross misuse of UK libel law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case is ( fortunately ) nothing like the examples you give.This was about a question in Parliament .
i.e. Statements publicly made , by public representatives in a place where freedom of speech is protected to the highest extent in the UK .
The statements were available to anyone who looked at the records.The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements , bringing into doubt the entire system of freedom of speech and press in the UK .
( note to non-UK readers , there is no UK constitution to protect free speech ) .The bloggers ( and more importantly , pretty much every other part of the UK media ) were entirely right to repeatedly report on the gross misuse of UK libel law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case is (fortunately) nothing like the examples you give.This was about a question in Parliament.
i.e. Statements publicly made, by public representatives in a place where freedom of speech is protected to the highest extent in the UK.
The statements were available to anyone who looked at the records.The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements, bringing into doubt the entire system of freedom of speech and press in the UK.
(note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speech).The bloggers (and more importantly, pretty much every other part of the UK media) were entirely right to repeatedly report on the gross misuse of UK libel law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742997</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1255525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like your motorbike story. I too didn't have my motorbike stolen 20 years ago.<br><br>They broke the chain and padlock.<br><br>They rammed a screwdriver in the ignition and turned on the electrics.<br><br>I had no kickstart so the only way to fire the engine was to bump it.<br><br>I had an FS1E and those in the know would know that the gearbox is upsidedown. The twats were trying to bump it in top (4th) gear and it wouldn't start. They didn't even set fire to it, which is still surprising to this day.<br><br>I miss that bike. 70mph down hill on a 50cc (bored out to 65cc - shhhhh) bike made me king of all school bikers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your motorbike story .
I too did n't have my motorbike stolen 20 years ago.They broke the chain and padlock.They rammed a screwdriver in the ignition and turned on the electrics.I had no kickstart so the only way to fire the engine was to bump it.I had an FS1E and those in the know would know that the gearbox is upsidedown .
The twats were trying to bump it in top ( 4th ) gear and it would n't start .
They did n't even set fire to it , which is still surprising to this day.I miss that bike .
70mph down hill on a 50cc ( bored out to 65cc - shhhhh ) bike made me king of all school bikers : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your motorbike story.
I too didn't have my motorbike stolen 20 years ago.They broke the chain and padlock.They rammed a screwdriver in the ignition and turned on the electrics.I had no kickstart so the only way to fire the engine was to bump it.I had an FS1E and those in the know would know that the gearbox is upsidedown.
The twats were trying to bump it in top (4th) gear and it wouldn't start.
They didn't even set fire to it, which is still surprising to this day.I miss that bike.
70mph down hill on a 50cc (bored out to 65cc - shhhhh) bike made me king of all school bikers :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29748027</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255549260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress?</i></p><p>Is there such a country? In the US, you have to prove it was a lie for it to be slander. If the "slanderous" statement is true you're off the hook no matter how harmful the truth is, unlike England.</p><p>And freedom of speech has nothing to do with the nuts in Kansas. However, is scientology legal in England? Even though it's a fake religion made up by a science fiction hack writer?</p><p>Lying is legal, slanderous lying is not. Here, the truth is never slander.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress ? Is there such a country ?
In the US , you have to prove it was a lie for it to be slander .
If the " slanderous " statement is true you 're off the hook no matter how harmful the truth is , unlike England.And freedom of speech has nothing to do with the nuts in Kansas .
However , is scientology legal in England ?
Even though it 's a fake religion made up by a science fiction hack writer ? Lying is legal , slanderous lying is not .
Here , the truth is never slander .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress?Is there such a country?
In the US, you have to prove it was a lie for it to be slander.
If the "slanderous" statement is true you're off the hook no matter how harmful the truth is, unlike England.And freedom of speech has nothing to do with the nuts in Kansas.
However, is scientology legal in England?
Even though it's a fake religion made up by a science fiction hack writer?Lying is legal, slanderous lying is not.
Here, the truth is never slander.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742481</id>
	<title>Full Report</title>
	<author>ThoughtMonster</author>
	<datestamp>1255517760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The full report is also up on wikileaks, along with some background info.<br>
<br>

<a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton\_report:\_Trafigura\_Toxic\_dumping\_along\_the\_Ivory\_Coast\_broke\_EU\_regulations\%2C\_14\_Sep\_2006" title="wikileaks.org" rel="nofollow">http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton\_report:\_Trafigura\_Toxic\_dumping\_along\_the\_Ivory\_Coast\_broke\_EU\_regulations\%2C\_14\_Sep\_2006</a> [wikileaks.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The full report is also up on wikileaks , along with some background info .
http : //wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton \ _report : \ _Trafigura \ _Toxic \ _dumping \ _along \ _the \ _Ivory \ _Coast \ _broke \ _EU \ _regulations \ % 2C \ _14 \ _Sep \ _2006 [ wikileaks.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The full report is also up on wikileaks, along with some background info.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton\_report:\_Trafigura\_Toxic\_dumping\_along\_the\_Ivory\_Coast\_broke\_EU\_regulations\%2C\_14\_Sep\_2006 [wikileaks.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743445</id>
	<title>'injuncted'?</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1255529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wondering the same, I saw Private Eye itself use 'injuncted', but I think this is another of those slightly fishy past-participle formations, like 'to gift' which some people use instead of 'to give'.

I believe the right verb is 'to enjoin', and so 'enjoined'.  An act of joining things is a junction, and so an act of enjoining is an injunction (so the first letter changes, but apart from that it follows the rule).

<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enjoin" title="merriam-webster.com" rel="nofollow">Merriam-Webster</a> [merriam-webster.com] also supports this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering the same , I saw Private Eye itself use 'injuncted ' , but I think this is another of those slightly fishy past-participle formations , like 'to gift ' which some people use instead of 'to give' .
I believe the right verb is 'to enjoin ' , and so 'enjoined' .
An act of joining things is a junction , and so an act of enjoining is an injunction ( so the first letter changes , but apart from that it follows the rule ) .
Merriam-Webster [ merriam-webster.com ] also supports this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering the same, I saw Private Eye itself use 'injuncted', but I think this is another of those slightly fishy past-participle formations, like 'to gift' which some people use instead of 'to give'.
I believe the right verb is 'to enjoin', and so 'enjoined'.
An act of joining things is a junction, and so an act of enjoining is an injunction (so the first letter changes, but apart from that it follows the rule).
Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com] also supports this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743395</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1255528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements,</p></div></blockquote><p>Not idiot lawyers, very clever and competent (if evil) lawyers.  Idiot judge, probably.  Idiot laws, for sure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements,Not idiot lawyers , very clever and competent ( if evil ) lawyers .
Idiot judge , probably .
Idiot laws , for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements,Not idiot lawyers, very clever and competent (if evil) lawyers.
Idiot judge, probably.
Idiot laws, for sure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742623</id>
	<title>Do we know which idiot judge granted this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He/she needs to be introduced to the 1689 Bill Of Rights and it's provision for the free reporting of Parliament.

I've looked around, but no one appears to be mentioning the judge by name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He/she needs to be introduced to the 1689 Bill Of Rights and it 's provision for the free reporting of Parliament .
I 've looked around , but no one appears to be mentioning the judge by name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He/she needs to be introduced to the 1689 Bill Of Rights and it's provision for the free reporting of Parliament.
I've looked around, but no one appears to be mentioning the judge by name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</id>
	<title>Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's great when this happens to a big business... But what about when it happens to individuals and victims?
<br> <br>
To use an example. Imagine a celebrity's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her. Will she have to deal with so many blogs reporting on it that the court order becomes pointless? Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge?
<br> <br>
With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack, it's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency. It's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great when this happens to a big business... But what about when it happens to individuals and victims ?
To use an example .
Imagine a celebrity 's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there 's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her .
Will she have to deal with so many blogs reporting on it that the court order becomes pointless ?
Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge ?
With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack , it 's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency .
It 's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great when this happens to a big business... But what about when it happens to individuals and victims?
To use an example.
Imagine a celebrity's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her.
Will she have to deal with so many blogs reporting on it that the court order becomes pointless?
Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge?
With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack, it's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency.
It's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742763</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>MozzleyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1255522380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge?</p></div><p>Basically<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. yes. The necessity for court proceedings means too many people know, and if it happened to a public figure it is too profitable for media outlets to ignore. Sad reality of the world we live in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge ? Basically .. yes. The necessity for court proceedings means too many people know , and if it happened to a public figure it is too profitable for media outlets to ignore .
Sad reality of the world we live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge?Basically .. yes. The necessity for court proceedings means too many people know, and if it happened to a public figure it is too profitable for media outlets to ignore.
Sad reality of the world we live in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745339</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1255537620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security through obscurity = Camouflage</p><p>If it wasn't security, then why dress up in cammo outfits and ghillie suits</p><p>The whole point of camouflage is to hide in plain sight, to be seen without being seen; to appear not as what you are, but as something else. It is the ultimate in "security through obscurity".</p><p>And that is why people never see Sasquatch, he isn't black fur, he is moss covered green, and you can look right at him and never see him.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/humor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security through obscurity = CamouflageIf it was n't security , then why dress up in cammo outfits and ghillie suitsThe whole point of camouflage is to hide in plain sight , to be seen without being seen ; to appear not as what you are , but as something else .
It is the ultimate in " security through obscurity " .And that is why people never see Sasquatch , he is n't black fur , he is moss covered green , and you can look right at him and never see him .
/humor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security through obscurity = CamouflageIf it wasn't security, then why dress up in cammo outfits and ghillie suitsThe whole point of camouflage is to hide in plain sight, to be seen without being seen; to appear not as what you are, but as something else.
It is the ultimate in "security through obscurity".And that is why people never see Sasquatch, he isn't black fur, he is moss covered green, and you can look right at him and never see him.
/humor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744817</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255535460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century.  A few of us got together and decided, among other things, that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  We wanted to be CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.</p><p>The British didn't believe in this.  They believed in something else, some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.</p><p>It's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century .
A few of us got together and decided , among other things , that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights , among which are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .
We wanted to be CITIZENS , not SUBJECTS.The British did n't believe in this .
They believed in something else , some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.It 's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century.
A few of us got together and decided, among other things, that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We wanted to be CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.The British didn't believe in this.
They believed in something else, some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.It's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742585</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1255519080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Face facts here, bud. The publication of the pictures of Rihanna's assault were nothing to do with the lack of tact of the blogging community, but more so that the public seems to see that every single facet of celebrity life is public domain.<br> <br>At least the paparazzi didn't get any money out of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Face facts here , bud .
The publication of the pictures of Rihanna 's assault were nothing to do with the lack of tact of the blogging community , but more so that the public seems to see that every single facet of celebrity life is public domain .
At least the paparazzi did n't get any money out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Face facts here, bud.
The publication of the pictures of Rihanna's assault were nothing to do with the lack of tact of the blogging community, but more so that the public seems to see that every single facet of celebrity life is public domain.
At least the paparazzi didn't get any money out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744201</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>anotherzeb</author>
	<datestamp>1255532940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might like to know - Singh just got right to appeal: <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/10/simon-singh-wins-leave-to-appeal-in-bca-libel-case/" title="indexoncensorship.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/10/simon-singh-wins-leave-to-appeal-in-bca-libel-case/</a> [indexoncensorship.org] I agree with you entirely and hope that this sets a precedent for libel</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might like to know - Singh just got right to appeal : http : //www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/10/simon-singh-wins-leave-to-appeal-in-bca-libel-case/ [ indexoncensorship.org ] I agree with you entirely and hope that this sets a precedent for libel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might like to know - Singh just got right to appeal: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/10/simon-singh-wins-leave-to-appeal-in-bca-libel-case/ [indexoncensorship.org] I agree with you entirely and hope that this sets a precedent for libel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743361</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1255528680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong. England and Wales [wikipedia.org] have never had freedom of speech. It cannot be "restored", it was never there.</p></div><p>Indeed.  Any judge is still allowed to prevent the media from reporting on Parliament.  (Trafigura's lawyers dropped the gag request).  There is still no freedom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Slashdot headline " restore " is wrong .
England and Wales [ wikipedia.org ] have never had freedom of speech .
It can not be " restored " , it was never there.Indeed .
Any judge is still allowed to prevent the media from reporting on Parliament .
( Trafigura 's lawyers dropped the gag request ) .
There is still no freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong.
England and Wales [wikipedia.org] have never had freedom of speech.
It cannot be "restored", it was never there.Indeed.
Any judge is still allowed to prevent the media from reporting on Parliament.
(Trafigura's lawyers dropped the gag request).
There is still no freedom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742369</id>
	<title>Stephen Fry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255516200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I loved <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/8304908.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">Stephen Fry's quote on this </a> [bbc.co.uk] </p><blockquote><div><p>"Can it be true? Carter-Ruck caves in! Hurrah! Trafigura will deny it had anything to do with Twitter, but we know don't we? We know! Yay!!!"</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved Stephen Fry 's quote on this [ bbc.co.uk ] " Can it be true ?
Carter-Ruck caves in !
Hurrah ! Trafigura will deny it had anything to do with Twitter , but we know do n't we ?
We know !
Yay ! ! ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved Stephen Fry's quote on this  [bbc.co.uk] "Can it be true?
Carter-Ruck caves in!
Hurrah! Trafigura will deny it had anything to do with Twitter, but we know don't we?
We know!
Yay!!!" 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745123</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>starfarer42</author>
	<datestamp>1255536720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you describe is not so much security through obscurity as simply security through not being worth the effort to crack. In some sense that's true of *every* security solution. Not every bank vault needs to be Fort Knox, not every e-mail needs to be protected by 4096 bit encryption. You match the level of security to the value of the target. So what you really have is a low-security solution protecting a low-value target, which is fine so long as you really don't value your bike (or your porn collection) very highly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you describe is not so much security through obscurity as simply security through not being worth the effort to crack .
In some sense that 's true of * every * security solution .
Not every bank vault needs to be Fort Knox , not every e-mail needs to be protected by 4096 bit encryption .
You match the level of security to the value of the target .
So what you really have is a low-security solution protecting a low-value target , which is fine so long as you really do n't value your bike ( or your porn collection ) very highly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you describe is not so much security through obscurity as simply security through not being worth the effort to crack.
In some sense that's true of *every* security solution.
Not every bank vault needs to be Fort Knox, not every e-mail needs to be protected by 4096 bit encryption.
You match the level of security to the value of the target.
So what you really have is a low-security solution protecting a low-value target, which is fine so long as you really don't value your bike (or your porn collection) very highly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743277</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255528140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your "security" merely stopped passing joy riders from taking a junk bike for fun. If these were real bike thieves (assuming your bike was worth something), your machine would have been lifted into a van in a matter of seconds, and the van would be gone. Your main security in your example was not having a decent bike to start with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your " security " merely stopped passing joy riders from taking a junk bike for fun .
If these were real bike thieves ( assuming your bike was worth something ) , your machine would have been lifted into a van in a matter of seconds , and the van would be gone .
Your main security in your example was not having a decent bike to start with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your "security" merely stopped passing joy riders from taking a junk bike for fun.
If these were real bike thieves (assuming your bike was worth something), your machine would have been lifted into a van in a matter of seconds, and the van would be gone.
Your main security in your example was not having a decent bike to start with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742935</id>
	<title>Re:Worrying precedent</title>
	<author>vague disclaimer</author>
	<datestamp>1255524600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>To use an example. Imagine a celebrity's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her.</i>

<p>There is already a law (not a court order, statute law) banning the identification of rape victims in the UK. Of course you can't stop every sicko doing what they can to get around that.

</p><p>But the issue here was a law firm exploiting a very narrow legal loophole to circumvent parliamentary privilege and <i>suppress</i> publication. That Carter Fuck created a PR catastrophe in doing so will hopefully be a salutary lesson (ha!). A similar shitstorm could be brought onto the head of anyone who exposed a rape victim. It is simply a question of if enough people care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To use an example .
Imagine a celebrity 's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there 's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her .
There is already a law ( not a court order , statute law ) banning the identification of rape victims in the UK .
Of course you ca n't stop every sicko doing what they can to get around that .
But the issue here was a law firm exploiting a very narrow legal loophole to circumvent parliamentary privilege and suppress publication .
That Carter Fuck created a PR catastrophe in doing so will hopefully be a salutary lesson ( ha ! ) .
A similar shitstorm could be brought onto the head of anyone who exposed a rape victim .
It is simply a question of if enough people care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To use an example.
Imagine a celebrity's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her.
There is already a law (not a court order, statute law) banning the identification of rape victims in the UK.
Of course you can't stop every sicko doing what they can to get around that.
But the issue here was a law firm exploiting a very narrow legal loophole to circumvent parliamentary privilege and suppress publication.
That Carter Fuck created a PR catastrophe in doing so will hopefully be a salutary lesson (ha!).
A similar shitstorm could be brought onto the head of anyone who exposed a rape victim.
It is simply a question of if enough people care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743089</id>
	<title>Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there</title>
	<author>coldfarnorth</author>
	<datestamp>1255526280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) I second Yoshi\_mon's comment</p><p>b) It amuses me that you left the Scots out of your idea of "we".  I approve.</p><p>c) Our system (usually) allows a reasonable person to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, then treat the poor fool appropriately without being sued into oblivion.</p><p>d) As to the merits of free speech, we aren't going to stop someone from playing the fool (and deprive ourselves of a potential source of entertainment), like those bible-belters that you mention.  I'd sooner boot the circus out of town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) I second Yoshi \ _mon 's commentb ) It amuses me that you left the Scots out of your idea of " we " .
I approve.c ) Our system ( usually ) allows a reasonable person to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes , then treat the poor fool appropriately without being sued into oblivion.d ) As to the merits of free speech , we are n't going to stop someone from playing the fool ( and deprive ourselves of a potential source of entertainment ) , like those bible-belters that you mention .
I 'd sooner boot the circus out of town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) I second Yoshi\_mon's commentb) It amuses me that you left the Scots out of your idea of "we".
I approve.c) Our system (usually) allows a reasonable person to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, then treat the poor fool appropriately without being sued into oblivion.d) As to the merits of free speech, we aren't going to stop someone from playing the fool (and deprive ourselves of a potential source of entertainment), like those bible-belters that you mention.
I'd sooner boot the circus out of town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742639</id>
	<title>Re:Simon Singh</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1255519980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context</p></div></blockquote><p>
Security through obscurity is a warning, not a mantra.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context Security through obscurity is a warning , not a mantra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context
Security through obscurity is a warning, not a mantra.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29748027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29751249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29751359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0022251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0022251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29751359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0022251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0022251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29751249
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0022251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0022251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0022251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742723
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745955
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0022251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0022251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29742765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29746371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29744817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29749765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29745671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29748027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29743089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0022251.29747465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
