Re:He wrote the future: On Arthur C. Clarke's centenary
by dragonwriter on Monday January 23, 2017 @02:19PM
(#13465033)
> How is this not posthumous slander?
Well, mostly because it's libel, not slander.
[dead]
Re:He wrote the future: On Arthur C. Clarke's centenary
by Freak_NL on Monday January 23, 2017 @10:13AM
(#13462670)
> Also, there's more than just those two facts. Eg: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/notw-editor-sp...
That's at least something; you showed no sources at all in your earlier comment (edited now with the link you posted above). Still not much to go on considering the rather shifty reputation of the now-defunct News of the World (i.e., gutter press).
Re:He wrote the future: On Arthur C. Clarke's centenary
by Freak_NL on Monday January 23, 2017 @10:27AM
(#13462794)
Also, in that same article you linked where the former News of the World reporter Graham Johnson recounts his suspicions, Phil Hall, the former editor denies being coerced by Murdoch into not publishing the story:
> I can vaguely remember that story. I do remember that Roger Insall worked on it and I remember it was not published. My only recollection is that the only reason we wouldn't publish it was because of legal reasons. He said Mr Murdoch never asked him to spike stories. News International, publisher of the NOTW, made no comment.
This does not really lend credibility to the rumours bandied about by a tabloid hack.
How is this not posthumous slander?
If there is evidence of wrongdoing, than present that evidence. Unless I am misreading your comment, you are saying that because Arthur C. Clark was a wealthy European, and that he moved to Sri Lanka where child prostitution occurred at higher than average rates, and nothing more than just these two facts, we should suspect him of wrongdoing?
How does that kind of reasoning not turn any European male with money living in an exotic location into a suspected paedophile?