Just a Comment - Don't Freak Out!!!

Dudess

rosullivan wrote: »

if I reply, "Please stop, that's libellous", then I risk being banned - doesn't make sense to me, I'm not threatening to sue Boards.ie.

That's not true. I've had allegations of slander made against me twice by other posters here. None of them were reprimanded because you're right, that doesn't constitute threatening legal action against Boards.ie.

If a person posts "Expect a letter from my solicitor shortly" either on-thread or via personal message or on someone's profile... that's the kind of thing that's being referred to.

Steve

Dudess wrote: »

That's not true. I've had allegations of slander made against me twice by other posters here. None of them were reprimanded because you're right, that doesn't constitute threatening legal action against Boards.ie.

I think it does now though.

Any non frivolous use of the words 'libel' or 'slander' are likely to attract a ban.

And rightly so.

Talliesin

rosullivan wrote: »

Are we living in China now?

Jeez, your clichés suck. This one is right up with an emo brat whining "I never asked to be born". At least pick a more interesting oppressive regime. China is totally over-used.

rosullivan wrote: »

Clearly you did not get any legal advice before you posted the announcement as it is more than likely unlawful (sorry for the "legalese" but I couldn't think of any other way to phrase it).

Yes, "clearly". After all if mealy-mouthed descriptions like "it is more than likely unlawful" then that's bound to hold more water than the combination of free and bought legal advice boards regularly gets.

Actually, there's a really good irony in what you are saying about the expertise of the announcement poster in their professional field.

rosullivan wrote: »

I presume I will get banned now for trying to point out in a moderate and reasonable way that you are just being too heavy-handed and unreasonable.

Haylp! haylp! I'm being oppressed. Any minute now. Any minute now, they'll come. Come look at my brave martyrdom!

Any minute now...

rosullivan wrote: »

No leaders ever survived by outlawing criticism of them - quite the opposite.

If you really think the only way to criticise someone is to threaten legal action then societies slide into petty litigiousness has progressed more dreadfully than I feared.

rosullivan wrote: »

3. This is an issue of free speech.

This is why I don't just think your posts are stupid, but deeply offensive. But I'll come back to that, because you offer up the luls so effectively in the next sentence.

rosullivan wrote: »

Effectively the administrators are saying that (a) they can ban you if they don't like what you say

Well, they can, but that's not what they say at all.

rosullivan wrote: »

and (b) they can ban you even if they agree with what you say, but they don't like the way you phrased it or the precise words you used.

Likewise. Can you perhaps get someone to read it with you and help you with the meaning of each sentence?

rosullivan wrote: »

Free speech doesn't work that way.

Oh. That one's rib-ticklingly good.

rosullivan wrote: »

1. The fact that the mod who posted the announcement is a solicitor or barrister is utterly irrelevant. I know plenty of both types of lawyers - some are brilliant and some can barely spell their own name.

Eh, you just said above that no legal expertise was involved. Being a solicitor or a barrister is directly relevant to that, no?

rosullivan wrote: »

Having read all the posts, I can see the logic behind wanting to ban someone who is threatening to sue you

There is nothing about banning someone who is threatening to sue you.

Its about people using boards itself to threaten to sue them. If someone wants to sue boards or threaten them with a lawsuit they have every right to do so. The way to do this is to contact a lawyer and have them bring a suit or send a letter threatening to do so. It is not within the power of boards to prevent people from doing that, and rightly so. There's no reason why boards should facilitate this. Why the hell should they?

rosullivan wrote: »

My main point has been lost in the posts, and maybe I didn't express it very well. Let me give an example. Say one of the posters here calls me a crook, or says I am incompetent (or whatever). If I reply to that person " Please stop, that is personal abuse" that's fine. But if I reply, "Please stop, that's libellous", then I risk being banned - doesn't make sense to me, I'm not threatening to sue Boards.ie.

Ah, but chances are that you are completely clueless about what is or isn't actually libellous. That's certainly the norm.

So we've got some little idiot whose basic idea of the law is:

1. The law is always right and protects the good.
2. I am always right and good.
3. The law will back up my grievance, that certainly isn't pointless, based on a complete misunderstanding and actually doing me more harm than good
   

And of course they are generally wrong on all three points.

So they then threaten to sue, about 70% of the time actually saying something that really is actionable.

If the comment is public (rather than in a report) then half the time the target of the comment replies with something just as stupid. We're left with two morons threatening the sue each other over things that aren't actionable and often and actually defaming each other or other parties in the process.

Ever heard the expression "more heat than light"?

As a side-matter that is of considerable practical value. 100% of the people who have threatened legal action in reporting posts are complete idiots, making idiotic reports. 99% aren't even posts that should have been reported at all.

rosullivan wrote: »

I personally believe in freedom of speech

How ****ing dare you?

Okay. A publisher publishes something, and somebody says they shouldn't. All well and good.

But for that critic to frame their complaint in terms of essential human rights implies strongly that they should be prevented from publishing.

For said critic to then actually claim that they believe in freedom of speech, what gall!

It's quite clear that you either don't believe in freedom of speech, or you are just taking the piss. You are of course free to take the piss if you really want, but freedom of speech is important, and this bull**** is hence quite offensive.

Are you seriously saying that the admin of boards.ie have some sort of ability to stop you publishing things on other websites? I'd really like to hear how they prevent you from doing so. Indeed, I'm looking forward to you explaining that. Put up or shut up.

AckwelFoley

rosullivan wrote: »

There is an Announcement appearing on all forums called "Legal Threat = Site Ban". It appears to say that if a user threatens legal action, or even uses "legal" language, against boards.ie or another user, it will result in a site ban.

This is a truly bizarre announcement. Are we living in China now? Clearly you did not get any legal advice before you posted the announcement as it is more than likely unlawful (sorry for the "legalese" but I couldn't think of any other way to phrase it).

I presume I will get banned now for trying to point out in a moderate and reasonable way that you are just being too heavy-handed and unreasonable.

No leaders ever survived by outlawing criticism of them - quite the opposite.

how the fcuk is it unlawful? This is a privately run and owned site and are entitled to make whatever adjustments to, or directions to followed by members that they wish. If they want to put a ban on ppl that openly profess to having red hair they can. If you or anyone else dont like the new anti ginger rules... Log out

Talliesin

Actually, there are restrictions on what they can but into their terms and conditions.

Of course, in debates on such matters the side saying they should have greater liberty would be the side referencing Free Speech as the principle they argue from.

Is the siteban announcement against a user who threatens legal action against boards, or an individual member, or both?

javaboy

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the siteban announcement against a user who threatens legal action against boards, or an individual member, or both?

Both AFAIK.

Talliesin

Yep, both.

cornbb

My 2c: I'm not against that sidewide announcement because of any legal or freedom of speech issue, as far as I'm concerned the admins can ban or censor away to their hearts content without having to explain themselves, its their site.

But its hardly helping to welcome new people to the site I think... I imagine someone stumbling across boards for the first time wouldn't get a very good impression of the place because of it. Makes the site seem authoritarian, overbearing, paranoid, agressive or whatever (whether boards actually is or isn't these things is beside the point, and has already been the subject of hundreds of hilarious feedback threads )

Given that so few people actually do make legal threats against boards (and they tend to be idiots anyway) I don't see why such a prominent and ominous notice warning them off should be necessary. The whole "this is a privately owned site, you have no right to blah blah blah" mantra is trotted out frequently enough when required anyway. Just my own POV!

RoundyMooney

Throw legal bolloxology around (for that is what it is-one Irish body some years ago managed to legally term an errant employer an "asshole" by giving such a term legal definition), unless you own the sandpit, and even at that would wholly justify a siteban, because invariably, those that do, either haven't a clue what the term means, or haven't an iota of what the circumstances surrounding such an allegation need to consist of.

In short cretins. Cretins that in most cases rereg and partake of this libellous quagmire once more.

It's one facet of running a site such as this where I have utmost sympathy with the owners (and can understand Talliesin's ire as a past recipient of such dumbness).

The idiot factor in other words.

Sully

I dont understand the OPs comment about not freaking out when he has been very hostile in this thread (in my opinion). I dont understand why he could comment that Boards admins never got legal advise and when it was pointed out they did (the SMod who posted it being a barrister no.1 and seamus informing us that the admins were told by their solicitors not to let those that act like that stay here no.2) he accused the lawyers of possibly being ****e. Which really means "Okay, I was wrong on that but im not going to admit to be wrong. Instead, im going to keep saying they were wrong until someone in that business says what I want them to say".

I also never get the whole "ill probably get banned for this" line. Overused tbh.

Id hate if this site turned into a "Post whatever you want" type forum. Its grand the way it is and clearly a lot of people like it. Otherwise it would not be voted best online community and thosuands of active members would not be posting. Nothing against Feedback of course, which is fine. Using the solictior card to get your own way deserves a siteban.

VH

I've said it before, but it comes down to the difference between a distributor and a publisher. A distributor does not vet every written word, like boards, whereas a publisher does.

Think Easons, also a distributor. Easons stock all the daily newpspapers, but they are not responsible for the content of the daily newspapers. If one of them says something libellous (as frequently happens) Easons do not end up in court.

It doesn't really matter what boards users say as long as boards does not vet it prior to publication and then distributes it, in this case via the website, and I believe this will be proven in time.

OTOH, if you say something you shouldn't have, like a daily paper, you personally could end up in trouble. A threat of action in itself means nothing tho.

Bob the Builder

Sometimes things are better when there is freedom, rather than having this so-called freedom of speech.

I can discuss things, travel from forum to forum, and thank people where necessary.
I don't want to have the "Last time I checked, there wasn't any rules against free speech" patrol all over this site too. It's bad enough in reality.

Overheal

Freedom isnt free. It cost $1.95. If you want to even entertain the notion of fighting the powah you better Subscribe!

AlmightyCushion

Overheal wrote: »

Freedom isnt free. It cost $1.95. If you want to even entertain the notion of fighting the powah you better Subscribe!

Freedom actually cost a buck o five.

javaboy

VH wrote: »

I've said it before, but it comes down to the difference between a distributor and a publisher. A distributor does not vet every written word, like boards, whereas a publisher does.

Think Easons, also a distributor. Easons stock all the daily newpspapers, but they are not responsible for the content of the daily newspapers. If one of them says something libellous (as frequently happens) Easons do not end up in court.

Can you reference the legislation or precedents that makes this distinction for the internet? While we can probably all agree this sounds like the way it should be done, I'm not sure that legally it is. Can Boards really take the chance that a judge who appreciates the fine line between a distributor and a publisher?

Also who says that that approach is right? From a technical point of view, Boards could vet all posts. The fact that they choose not to does not necessarily make them immune to the law.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure there's nothing concrete to make the distinction between distributor and publisher as it pertains to the internet. Until there is, Boards is playing it safe.

It doesn't really matter what boards users say as long as boards does not vet it prior to publication and then distributes it, in this case via the website, and I believe this will be proven in time.

Maybe so but look what happens in the meantime. Voldemort etc.

Overheal

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Freedom actually cost a buck o five.

Yeah, maybe in 2004 it did.

Trojan

I think this issue has been very clearly answered already in this thread, particularly by seamus, amongst others. It's simple: in order to protect themselves against legal threats, boards.ie don't allow folks who've made legal threats continue to post. My laymans understanding is that it's similar to how people involved in civil court cases don't discuss the case while it's ongoing: it's simple self-protection.

You're welcome to criticise boards all you like if you keep it non-legalese and on topic.

If you want to further discuss technicalities of legal issues, please head over to the Legal Issues forum.

I think the issue has been answered and this thread has run it's course so I'll be closing it.

AlmightyCushion

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah, maybe in 2004 it did.

Damn inflation.