I'm not totally sure what's going on here, but from a series of Tweets by @uponnothing it seems that all of a sudden Dacre has taken exception to a post some time ago (November 2009) on The Angry Mob blog, in which Kevin Arscott expressed a wish for Dacre to die in pain.

uponnothing Kevin Arscott
Let me be careful, but clear, here: Paul Dacre is an absolute piece of shit and I stand by wishing him an early death.

uponnothing Kevin Arscott
Search 'Paul Dacre must die' and I'm sure Google has a cached copy. So AP should Chase them next, I'm sure Google can afford better lawyers.

uponnothing Kevin Arscott
Of course it is Associated Newspapers, not press. Apologies to them, I'll delete previous tweet accordingly.

uponnothing Kevin Arscott
Obviously I do not have money to fight the case so have removed said article, but it is cached here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gTZ1r9fpOu0J:www.angrymob.uponnothing.co.uk/home/43-somethingmademeangry/805-paul-dacre-must-die+paul+dacre+must+die&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

uponnothing Kevin Arscott
Thanks to @DanielSelwood for providing that link.

uponnothing Kevin Arscott
I also like the suggestion from @themadderhat that I refer them to the PCC!

osttourist Iain Tatch
@uponnothing Your ex-blogpost is #2 in Google search for "paul dacre". Wondering if it's possible to create enough furore to push it to #1

That was an hour ago, and nothing since. so it seems that Associated Newspapers' lawyers have put pressure (presumably threatened to sue for defamation) over the original piece, it has been removed from the blog, but still exists in the cache.

Why they should do so now is interesting - are the Mail on a seek-and-destroy mission over internet criticism, or is it simply because of the sentiments about Dacre (which actually raised criticism in the comments on that blog)?

What are the implications of this?

Does anyone have any more info?

The one thing I will say is that it shows how careful we need to be in criticising. I'd argue, and I speak as a fan and fellow blogger, that post was probably extreme in wishing death on someone. I'm thinking wishing violence or worse on people directly is soemthing we should be wary of.

Which puts the "faces to punch" thread in an awkward position...

I don't think we'll be seeing a Mail seek and destroy mission for two reasons. One, it'll take them a bloody long time and good luck forcing Facebook and Twitter into removing things. Two, it'll be enormously bad publicity, given they value freedom of speech so strongly. Even among their own readership, while some might be the "yeah get teh leftiezzzzz!!!1!" a fair few will probably think "hang on, they've got a right to think and write what they want if its legal". Not to mention what will happen when the likes of the Eye, the NS and the like get it and start publicising it, and it wouldn't be beyond reality to suggest it could even end up in Parliament or on other media outlets, especially given Cleggs recent thing about protecting bloggers under freedom of speech.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

I can't see how hoping someone dies is libellous.

I wouldn't call it libellous, but I have to say if someone wrote a piece saying they hoped I'd die on the internet I'd probably not look on it particularly fondly...

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Weren't AN claiming that it was abusive? Thing is, abuse isn't actionable unless it causes or is likely to cause a breach of the peace, which as the offence occurred in 2009 is unsustainable.

And how much do the Mail write that we don't look upon fondly?

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can sue.

And I didn't take it as hoping for Dacre to die, I took it more that it was when he does die, UponNothing hoped it would be painful. After all, there's no need to hope that he dies, he will die eventually, we all will.

_________________
The upper hand is on the other foot now.

I suppose it could be, if you can argue that the implication is that the person in question has done something so despicable that his continued existence is not justifiable; but I don't think a court would be too interested, because it would come within the general ambit of free expression of opinion and/or what used to be termed "vulgar abuse" which the courts reckon is just part of daily life and something you should put up with. In Dacre's case you could have fun putting up a defence based on every edition of the Mail produced since he took over.

I'm not saying they can. What I am saying, as I said before, is we need to be more careful about what we write. What's peeled off in anger now could come back and haunt us down the line, as was the case here.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Daily Mail threatens 'abusive' blogger with libel action

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... l-blogging

A wider audience.

_________________
"Fanaticism is the only form of willpower to which the weak minded and irresolute can rise."

Heh heh. Greenslade makes a couple of significant points, the first of which is that Dacre himself is in all probability quite unaware of this little excursion into litigation matters. But the other is that all the Mail's threatening letter has accomplished is effectively to have drawn attention to the point that Kevin Arscott was making in the first place. In which case, more power to the Mail's litigation department (it surely must have one, dedicated). The second is simply that, in Kevin's own words,



Kevin, if you're reading this, keep on keeping on - you're doing a grand job.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

A bit like Giggsy's super injunction then?

If the mail were to run a story with the headline "X must die" and then hoping a painful death upon someone I'm pretty sure the majority of people on here would be up in arms over it.

Wasn't it Littlejohn who suggested that Sharon Shoesmith should commit suicide?

_________________
The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.

My random blog!http://www.princevulpine.blogspot.co.uk
My non-random blog!http://princevulpinelondonchurches.blogspot.co.uk/

It was intemperate, and criticised as such at the time - in fact I remember reading it in 2009 and thinking that he wasn't doing himself a favour - but intemperate ranting is not an offence, as far as I am aware. In the Mail the language may be a (little) more moderate, but the sentiments are much the same, especially in the comments

Isn't it the Mail that so wildly insists that headlines are immaterial?

By their logic, all he needed to do was insert 'Some people feel that Paul Dacre may be immortal' somewhere in paragraph 15 in order to make it a perfectly balanced, reasonable piece of commentary.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity