<snip>

DrunkLeprachaun

<snip>

hullaballoo

OP and mods, my attention was drawn to this thread as being libellous, and as such, because of the laws on libel in this country (and not boards.ie's policy), I've had to snip the thread. Apologies to those concerned.

Retr0gamer

Another well done to the PC brigade. Taking something that is a joke and blowing it all out of proportion by censoring it like a Nazi SS stormtrooper. It's not as if it's links to warez or porn, just someones opinion presented in an amusing manner (btw all of Maddoxs facts were correct if not backed up). What happened to free speech anyway.

koneko

Overboard! :rolleyes:

Vegeta

i wonder who reported the thread

savemejebus

I inadvertently reported it. I asked a question on the helpdesk about whether company bashing would get boards in trouble after what happened with M*D and it escalated. I used sony as an example as i had just seen this thread an hullabaloo said yes boards could get in trouble and deleted the thread.

I am not a sony fanboy. I was just wondering what sort of position boards would be in in a company decided that they didn't like what we were saying

koneko

You can say that about anything. If I post my opinions about a game I don't like, should it be censored because the company might be upset? If I start a thread on the Film board talking about what a disappointment <insert whatever film here> is, should it be closed in case Universal/Fox/Lions Gate/whoever take offence?

This current climate of fear is a bad thing, and going too far. Soon we won't be able to say anything even remotely negative about anything.

savemejebus

i know, that's the question i was asking and point i was looking at. How can boards continue (as we know it) if we have to be censored/self-censor everything we say.

koneko

Exactly

Sorta defeats the point of discussions. If that's what the admins want (and tbh I don't think it is) then boards will start looking pretty empty.

iregk

The point is though, it was all completely 100% true and can be backed up by any of us so how can anyone be done for liable...

When you give up a little freedom to gain a little security you deserve neither and will loose both. - Ben Franklin...

DrunkLeprachaun

That's some very, VERY ****ty moderation. I posted that as a private individual, and it was all editorial content. Boards is in absolutely no way, shape or form liabel for that. So we're not alowed post about things unless they're all super-postive? Bull****. <snip>. Everything that article said they did, THEY DID(ignoring the obvious fact that satire can't be liabel). This kind of censorship only lets them get away with that ****.

Frankly, I'd like an apology for this editing. It was completely unwarranted.

hullaballoo

I seriously get the impression that not too many people understand the problem. The problem isn't with people having a valid opinion, it's with people saying things like "XYZ limited sucks satan's cock".

Unfortunately, such a statement is very hard to prove, and I think neither boards, nor any of its individual users would want to try to stand up and get across to a jury that such a statement is actually true. Aside from our own willingness to stand behind such a statement, you'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer with so much confidence.

There isn't a whole lot wrong with linking to articles like that. We're almost definitely not liable for that sort of thing. I was actually going to leave the link in, but none of the rest of the OP could have stayed.

Also, this isn't indicative of the end of boards. Jaysis, I mean, you come in here spouting "PC BRIGADE FCUKERS" and all of that, but what about the storm-in-a-teacup brigade?!

I've so far only snipped about 6 posts because of libellous content. There is another thread where people are giving out about Sony and I wouldn't dream of touching it. Something to do with some website going out of business. Then there's another, locked thread more or less about the same thing that I haven't pruned or otherwise.

There is no atmosphere of fear. What's happening now is that there's another dimension to posting on discussion forums because people are beginning to take notice of the internet. I'm getting so tired of people shouting "NAZI!" at me every time I do something to try to protect boards.

You guys just don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees.

failsafe

Can I say i like Nintendo? Or will Sony sue me too?

hullaballoo

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

That's some very, VERY ****ty moderation. I posted that as a private individual, and it was all editorial content.

So what? You posted on a public forum owned and run by boards.ie ltd.

Boards is in absolutely no way, shape or form liabel for that.

Is that so? It's news to me. Can you offer me some sort of reference point for this?

So we're not alowed post about things unless they're all super-postive?

Super-positive about what? It's truth? Well, a bit of common sense should tell you the answer to that. If you post something that will damage another person's reputation, do you not think you should be accountable for it if it isn't true? What if I said that you touched me? Would you not want to be able to vindicate your innocence somehow?

<snip>.

Another comment like that, and I will site-ban you. It's utter recklessness, and there's no reason for you to be allowed post on this site if you're going to continue to flout warnings like that.

Everything that article said they did, THEY DID

Yeah, but I didn't edit the article, did I? I edited your post. They quite blatantly didn't do some of the stuff you accused them of.

(ignoring the obvious fact that satire can't be liabel). This kind of censorship only lets them get away with that ****.[/quote
Yeah, you're right there, but again, I didn't edit the article. I edited your post. There was nothing to show me that your post was written, or intended to be construed as satire. If it was, it wasn't funny.

Frankly, I'd like an apology for this editing. It was completely unwarranted.

Well, you see whether or not it was warranted is subjective, and I don't think it was unwarranted. Apologise? No thanks.

koneko

I wrote a long post but something happened and the internet swallowed it whole, but in short I disagree with what you're saying, and "You guys just don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees" is awfully dismissive of what I consider valid concerns.
I read the mod board, I know what is going on and why there is a need to protect boards, please don't assume I don't know these things, but I think this is headed in a dangerous direction, where discussion and freedom of speech will end up stifled.

hullaballoo

I'm not dismissing anyone's concerns as to whether or not it would be a bad thing if we weren't allowed comment on certain issues full stop. I'm not exactly the most PC poster myself, and I like to have a bit of a go about people, companies or otherwise who I don't like.

My point is that whatever issues you have with a company can be expressed in a way that is more intelligent than "oh yeah, that guy licks windows", or worse. The issue in this thread was that the OP was over-zealous in his accusations against a company.

I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to blow the whistle on bad corporate behaviour - I'm all up for that, and do it myself from time to time - what it comes down to is where someone oversteps the mark and it goes to maliciously attacking someone's reputation for no reasonable grounds.

That's completely different from censoring opinion, which I don't do, nor will I ever.

DrunkLeprachaun

....Are you joking? "Sucking satan's cock" is a metaphor and pop-culture reference(see bill hicks, please). While the things I said may not have been proveable in court, they wouldn't have been disprovable either. This is because they were subjective concepts. I just don't understand how you can mistake opinion for slander.
Even considering that sony might take boards.ie to court because I post an insulting thread is unimaginably ludicrous. I cannot fathom what the hell kind of threat you see from this. If you want people to stop calling you a nazi, stop being one. Sure, you can ban me for this. But does that really seem like a productive way to solve matters? I've been a member of this community for more than 6 years. Threatening me with banning for stating an opinion about a company is disgusting, and a shocking abuse of power.
I'll be reporting this to the admins. If they chose to ignore it, fine. I have no real inclination to be part of a discussion community where I can't even express my opinions honestly.

Burning Eclipse

Retr0gamer wrote:

Another well done to the PC brigade. Taking something that is a joke and blowing it all out of proportion by censoring it like a Nazi SS stormtrooper. It's not as if it's links to warez or porn, just someones opinion presented in an amusing manner (btw all of Maddoxs facts were correct if not backed up). What happened to free speech anyway.

I want to preface this by saying I didn't see the original post. But in the same instance that's why I'm posting this-It bothers me that I never got the chance. If the things maddox said were indeed true then it's not libel. While my legal studies probably aren't as complete as hullaballoos (I'm still in university), I'm pretty sure if something is truthful it's not libel... Sorry I can't remember the case from tort off the top of my head. So why not just edit the original post hullaballoo, take out the libel content and leave in anything factual... also in my humble opinion what you did was delete and replace the post with the word snip, not "edit" as you say.

koneko

Posting things like "Sony suck satan's cock" is not very eloquent to some people (though it is a reference), but is it that much different from saying "I think Sony are a horrible company with horrible business practices"? Legally, is there a difference? Is it only the latter that isn't allowed, or both? Surely Sony would have a problem with both, the latter is a very valid opinion but would you be allowed to post it?

Time flies. 6PM. Home! Toodles.

DrunkLeprachaun

Burning Eclipse wrote:

So why not just edit the original post hullaballoo, take out the libel content and leave in anything factual... also in my humble opinion what you did was delete and replace the post with the word snip, not "edit" as you say.

Now THAT would have been a rational course of action. I still wouldn't have liked it much, but I would not nearly be so pissed off.

muffler

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

While the things I said may not have been proveable in court, they wouldn't have been disprovable either.

I cant see why you are annoyed after an admission like that.

Thats the great thing about libel law. They don't have to disprove anything but you must prove that statements made by you were true and factual.

hullaballoo

DrunkLeprachaun, I'm not about to ban you for calling me a nazi. I couldn't give a toss what you think of me. The ban would be for flouting a warning about what you say about Sony.

I don't want to get too legally technical, because it's not the correct style for here, but I can deal with your point about Sony not being able to disprove what you said, and what Burning Eclipse said about something not being libel if it's the truth by referring to one principle.

If someone sues you for libel, all they have to prove is that you said something that could damage their reputation. They do not have to prove it was an untrue statement.

Here, you have a number of defences. Only one of them, justification, goes to whether or not what you said was true. If you try to defend your comment by saying that it is true, then you have to prove it is true. How you could ever prove that someone "sucks satan's cock" goes beyond my expertise, but you seem happy enough that you could.

Burning Eclipse, I hope this has answered that part of your post. As for what I edited out, there was nothing in it that was factual. It was just a string of curses and angry faces and then the link. I probably shouldn't have edited out the link. I apologise for that.

How would you define the word "edit". I'd give it, "to change in some way"*. Thus, if I change it in some way I have edited it.

*See meaning #4.

DrunkLeprachaun

If you honestly believe anyone is liabel for saying that a corporation "sucks satan's cock", I can only reason that you are a delusional crackpot. Praytell, how can a corporation, having no literal mouth, suck the genitalia/chicken of a metaphysical concept that most people(such as myself) don't actually believe exists?

By the way, complaint thread posted here. I mean, do you really think you're in the right here? Do you really think we shouldn't have the right to say what we want to say?

hullaballoo

Ah, you're coming around to my point nicely.

How, indeed, can a corporation, with no physical orifice with which to suck, administer a treatment like that to a being who is metaphysical, and if he does exist, may or may not have a cock?

The liability would arise because you cannot prove it's true.

Whether or not I'm a "delusional crackpot" is a separate issue which I'm sure will be established over in the Help Desk.

Just My View

Even though Hulla has not yet qualified if his sig is anything to go by, he has a more informed legal viewpoint than 99.9% of posters so we should listen carefully to his advice. He is a genuine bloke and has boards interests at heart. I enjoy "fighting teh powah" as much as the next guy but this is a no contest. Hulla is right.

My 2c + VAT

Burning Eclipse

hullaballoo wrote:

DrunkLeprachaun, I'm not about to ban you for calling me a nazi. I couldn't give a toss what you think of me. The ban would be for flouting a warning about what you say about Sony.

I don't want to get too legally technical, because it's not the correct style for here, but I can deal with your point about Sony not being able to disprove what you said, and what Burning Eclipse said about something not being libel if it's the truth by referring to one principle.

If someone sues you for libel, all they have to prove is that you said something that could damage their reputation. They do not have to prove it was an untrue statement.

Here, you have a number of defences. Only one of them, justification, goes to whether or not what you said was true. If you try to defend your comment by saying that it is true, then you have to prove it is true. How you could ever prove that someone "sucks satan's cock" goes beyond my expertise, but you seem happy enough that you could.

Burning Eclipse, I hope this has answered that part of your post. As for what I edited out, there was nothing in it that was factual. It was just a string of curses and angry faces and then the link. I probably shouldn't have edited out the link. I apologise for that.

How would you define the word "edit". I'd give it, "to change in some way"*. Thus, if I change it in some way I have edited it.

*See meaning #4.

The edit issue is semantic.

About the libel thing though. I thought I understood what it entailed. I know that if someone sues you for libel, all they have to prove is that you said something that could damage their reputation. I never insinuated the onus was on them to prove it was untruthful... My point was if the defendant could prove it was true, would that not be a sufficient defense? Again I can't remember the specific case but the general course of events was this: An accountant (I think) had a picture of him in a chicken suit printed in a national paper in England. He sued for defamation because it would damage his reputation among his colleagues and potential customers, and that in his opinion, the paper had printed it maliciously. The court ruled with the defendant saying that what they had printed was truthful and therefore no defamation had taken place.

I'm not the best law student but I think there's a connection and if not please point it out... really wish I could remember the case?!

fade2black

Aren't opinions, and the expressing of them illegal now?

failsafe

hullaballoo wrote:

How would you define the word "edit". I'd give it, "to change in some way"*. Thus, if I change it in some way I have edited it.

Ah, in fairness. "i didn't delete it, i just changed it in such a way that it doesn't exist anymore"!?


I didn't get to read the OP so i don't think it's fair that i comment to heavily on the rest of the discussion, but any chance of either of you re-posting the link so we can get an idea of what the OP was about?

K.O.Kiki

Isn't there a provision in the DMRA (Digital Millenium Rights Act) which protects websites from being held accountable, in court, for user-posted content?
I'm sure it saved youTube a few times...

MarkR

DrunkLeprachaun - You don't seem to be grasping the whole slander thing. You said something defamatory which could not possibly be the literal truth, and you posted it on a public message board leaving this board up to a lawsuit.

If you want to express these views about a company somehow sucking the devils naughty bits then set up your own website to talk about it. Or call joe duffy!

If you still feel hard done by maybe you should contact your solicitor to see what they advise.

hullaballoo

Burning Eclipse wrote:

The edit issue is semantic.

About the libel thing though. I thought I understood what it entailed. I know that if someone sues you for libel, all they have to prove is that you said something that could damage their reputation. I never insinuated the onus was on them to prove it was untruthful... My point was if the defendant could prove it was true, would that not be a sufficient defense? Again I can't remember the specific case but the general course of events was this: An accountant (I think) had a picture of him in a chicken suit printed in a national paper in England. He sued for defamation because it would damage his reputation among his colleagues and potential customers, and that in his opinion, the paper had printed it maliciously. The court ruled with the defendant saying that what they had printed was truthful and therefore no defamation had taken place.

I'm not the best law student but I think there's a connection and if not please point it out... really wish I could remember the case?!

Yeah, you're right there. My point was that there's no way in hell ('scuse pun) that the OP could prove what he was saying was true. It's only in cases where I think that the post is blatantly untrue, or unprovable, that I'll make an edit, or deletion.