AH, 'Celebrities' and 'Abuse'

dr.bollocko

So if somebody calls, say, a formerly famous singer but now convicted paedo a sick paedo scumbag then that would be a bannable offence?

Tom Dunne

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So if somebody calls, say, a formerly famous singer but now convicted paedo a sick paedo scumbag then that would be a bannable offence?

Well, technically two out of those three statements are true for such a person (he is sick, and he has been convicted of paedophilia).

So, do you normally ban a poster for calling somebody a scumbag?

dr.bollocko

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Well, technically two out of those three statements are true for such a person (he is sick, and he has been convicted of paedophilia).

So, do you normally ban a poster for calling somebody a scumbag?

Another poster, yes.
A figure of infamy in current affairs, no.
(Generally speaking.)

El Weirdo

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Well, technically two out of those three statements are true for such a person (he is sick, and he has been convicted of paedophilia).

So, do you normally ban a poster for calling somebody a scumbag?

If calling someone a scumbag in AH was a bannable offence, it would be a very quiet forum.

Tom Dunne

Tom Dunne wrote: »

and here's what I wouldn't be ok with:

• He's a f**king retard
• She is a stupid cnut
• He is a clueless f**kwit

and add in there any kind of racist bigotry too. I am sure there is more.

Not a definitive list, but do you get the idea?

I can't believe there is an issue with that type of post.... I don't even post like that but I think I should be legally able to since it's definitely not slander. Can someone link me to the blog that got sued for 100k? I presume that they were actually attacking the person's character and reputation, not just expressing anger.

Insults are not illegal. Slander is illegal. Huge and unbelievably obvious difference.

OutlawPete

I honestly can't believe how blasé Boards is being with moderators here, especially AH one's where this new precedent will have most impact.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

We are not asking people not to slag celebrities. We are asking people not to get nasty about slagging celebrities.

And you can't see how that statement is a little vague?

What's "slagging" and what's "nasty"?

You are are setting a major precedent here (one which I agree with in principal by the way) and being wishy washy while going about it, which obviously is going mean that Mods across Boards will have to judge for themselves what is "slagging" and what is "abusive".

Tom Dunne wrote: »

If only it was as simple as putting up a disclaimer.

There has to be at least some amendments to the Boards T&Cs to state that the same rules governing personal abuse while conversing with other Boards users, now also applies to celebrities and those in the public eye.

oscarBravo wrote: »

With my admin hat off, I can only reiterate that it surprises and disappoints me that people need to have their hands held to explain to them how to be critical without being abusive.

I don't see anybody wanting to have their hand held, but someone needs to come out and say with a little more clarity, what is and isn't acceptable to call celebrities and those in the public eye.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I mean, seriously. When did calling someone a complete retard stop being abusive? Have we, as a society, really stooped that low?

I would agree with you 100% in any other setting, but that statement does nothing to make it clear what is "slagging" and what is "nasty".

You say "complete retard" is out - how about, 'fool', 'crazy', 'not right in the head', 'media whore', 'twit', 'ugly', 'gob****e', 'creep', 'bitch' etc etc.

Are ALL these now no longer acceptable?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm just in shock that there are people who believe that calling someone a complete retard is valid criticism, and not abusive.

How could you be in "shock" about something that happens each and everyday on Boards and has been allowed to happen for years?

How can Admin act as if Mods seeking clarity here with the specifics of this is somehow asking for a little too much?

They are the ones that have to Moderate it and surely a little specificity would go some way to seeing that there is some consistency across Boards by the different moderators as this new stance starts to be applied.

Tom Dunne

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Another poster, yes.
A figure of infamy in current affairs, no.
(Generally speaking.)

Well then, there's your answer.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't believe there is an issue with that type of post.... I don't even post like that but I think I should be legally able to since it's definitely not slander. Can someone link me to the blog that got sued for 100k? I presume that they were actually attacking the person's character and reputation, not just expressing anger.

Insults are not illegal. Slander is illegal. Huge and unbelievably obvious difference.

How can you say that? Neither you nor I are qualified to state that as fact, as is the case with probably 99% of AH posters. There is a big difference between fact and opinion.

The bottom line is, it is our duty, as a community, to protect the site from potentially harmful legal action, you, me and everyone else. If that means toning down the abuse directed at celebrities, well then sadly, that has to be done. I am not for a minute saying I necessarily agree with it, but if it is the law of the land, then there isn't much we can do about it.

dr.bollocko

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Well then, there's your answer.

The answer is it's not OK to call Gary Glitter a scumbag? Or am I missing something? What about the likes of Charlie Sheen after he pleaded guilty to knocking his wife about?Mel Gibson? Roman Polanski? Nick Griffin and the BNP? Mr. Cowen and Mary fecking Harney? This is stuff that comes up all the time whereby these people are called idiots and scumbags for some sort of idiotic or scumbag behaviour or other etc. The difference here appears to be a semantic one which makes little sense to me.

How can you say that? Neither you nor I are qualified to state that as fact, as is the case with probably 99% of AH posters. There is a big difference between fact and opinion.

The bottom line is, it is our duty, as a community, to protect the site from potentially harmful legal action, you, me and everyone else. If that means toning down the abuse directed at celebrities, well then sadly, that has to be done. I am not for a minute saying I necessarily agree with it, but if it is the law of the land, then there isn't much we can do about it.

We're all trying (well 99.9% of posters are trying) to do right by boards as it's a great resource and community. Look at how the MCD thing was handled. You know, boards was in trouble and the whole community reacted well to it.
Well do we actually have somebody who can tell us the specifics of the law of the land rooted in the reality of day-to-day posting on boards before we start implementing these rules? I just don't get why what has flew fine across multiple fora (not just after hours) ever since I joined is suddenly no longer OK in the light of a thread about some random nobody that got deleted. I know we can tighten up on nasty stuff here and there but it's the "here and there" aspect we're going to need more input on.

I just think that it's owed to the moderators who've been here for years to seek proper legal advice and not have them changing their standards on the whims of admins who don't know for sure.. I keep coming back to insult v. slander and it seems like people can't differentiate and that is certain to cause problems when the banhammer's been thrown about.

Nevyn

Insults can be defamation.

A thing can be true about a person but how you express your opinion of it can lead to the defaming of a person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

So no abuse, really I do think that posters (even ah posters :P ) can be critical of people in the public eye with out being abusive.

I know there are sites out there where you can get away with saying anything you want but the majority of those are in the USA not here and Ireland is also such a small place and boards posts come up in the top 10 of links when someone googles.
Which the recent google ad pointed out.

Nevyn

Deleted User wrote: »

I just think that it's owed to the moderators who've been here for years to seek proper legal advice and not have them changing their standards on the whims of admins who don't know for sure.. I keep coming back to insult v. slander and it seems like people can't differentiate and that is certain to cause problems when the banhammer's been thrown about.

Dude the admins and boards ltd have had legal advice on this which is why things have to be done this way, this isn't being done on the whim of the admins.

Nevyn

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Well do we actually have somebody who can tell us the specifics of the law of the land rooted in the reality of day-to-day posting on boards before we start implementing these rules?

The law of the land was written before the likes of posting on boards.ie was ever conceived, and as a result considers posts published on the internet to be the exact same as those published by newspapers.

It wasn't' as much of a problem until boards got so big and so googable.
You can have a small forum with 500 posters and post what you like about who ever and chances are it won't be read or acted on or cause a law suit.
This is no longer where boards is and as a result things have to change.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I just don't get why what has flew fine across multiple fora (not just after hours) ever since I joined is suddenly no longer OK in the light of a thread about some random nobody that got deleted. I know we can tighten up on nasty stuff here and there but it's the "here and there" aspect we're going to need more input on.

It's enlight of the fact boards.ie is now main stream Irish internet and has to mind it's Ps & Qs more as a result.

The site rules say don't do anything illegal and defaming someone is considered that unfortunately.

dr.bollocko

Thaedydal wrote: »

The law of the land was written before the likes of posting on boards.ie was ever conceived, and as a result considers posts published on the internet to be the exact same as those published by newspapers.

It wasn't' as much of a problem until boards got so big and so googable.
You can have a small forum with 500 posters and post what you like about who ever and chances are it won't be read or acted on or cause a law suit.
This is no longer where boards is and as a result things have to change.




It's enlight of the fact boards.ie is now main stream Irish internet and has to mind it's Ps & Qs more as a result.

The site rules say don't do anything illegal and defaming someone is considered that unfortunately.

I totally get that. I accept that boards needs to cover it's ass and has always done. I have a general interest in the "why now" aspect but my main concern is the how aspect.
I'm just wondering how the best way of implementing it is in a specific and useful manner rather than the general case if you get where I'm coming from.

Tom Dunne

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The answer is it's not OK to call Gary Glitter a scumbag? Or am I missing something?

I think you might be. You said it above that you wouldn't normally ban somebody for calling somebody in the news a scumbag.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

What about the likes of Charlie Sheen after he pleaded guilty to knocking his wife about?Mel Gibson? Roman Polanski? Nick Griffin and the BNP? Mr. Cowen and Mary fecking Harney? This is stuff that comes up all the time whereby these people are called idiots and scumbags for some sort of idiotic or scumbag behaviour or other etc. The difference here appears to be a semantic one which makes little sense to me.

Straight up - I don't know. One angle that I think needs to be looked at is how likely are these people to take legal action against Boards.ie? People outside the country - probably not. Mary Harney and Brian Cowen - more likely. So, arguably, you could get away with saying more about the former and have to be more restrained about the latter. This is my own personal observation, this is not Boards policy and I think it is something that needs to be clarified.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

We're all trying (well 99.9% of posters are trying) to do right by boards as it's a great resource and community. Look at how the MCD thing was handled. You know, boards was in trouble and the whole community reacted well to it.
Well do we actually have somebody who can tell us the specifics of the law of the land rooted in the reality of day-to-day posting on boards before we start implementing these rules? I just don't get why what has flew fine across multiple fora (not just after hours) ever since I joined is suddenly no longer OK in the light of a thread about some random nobody that got deleted. I know we can tighten up on nasty stuff here and there but it's the "here and there" aspect we're going to need more input on.

Ok, it certainly sounds like that is something that needs to be worked on. I am not 100% on it, so I fully understand where you are coming from.

Deleted User wrote: »

I just think that it's owed to the moderators who've been here for years to seek proper legal advice and not have them changing their standards on the whims of admins who don't know for sure.. I keep coming back to insult v. slander and it seems like people can't differentiate and that is certain to cause problems when the banhammer's been thrown about.

When will you accept that this is not at the whim of a bunch of disconnected admins? And when will you accept that when a legal threat is issued somebody (i.e. admins) has to do something.

What I think the issue is here, and by all means correct me if I am wrong, is the clarification of what is, and is not acceptable.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I totally get that. I accept that boards needs to cover it's ass and has always done. I have a general interest in the "why now" aspect but my main concern is the how aspect.
I'm just wondering how the best way of implementing it is in a specific and useful manner rather than the general case if you get where I'm coming from.

I think the why now is coming from the recent legal threats.

See above. This is something we as a community need to clarify.

I don't know if this falls into the remit of FeedForward, or if is is something the mods/cmods/admins/employees need to hammer out with the legal advisers.

I appreciate your frustration, Dr. B, but it sounds like this is something we will have to clear up.

Nevyn

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I totally get that. I accept that boards needs to cover it's ass and has always done. I have a general interest in the "why now" aspect but my main concern is the how aspect.
I'm just wondering how the best way of implementing it is in a specific and useful manner rather than the general case if you get where I'm coming from.

I think the thread in AH about that hack jurno writer
columnist slating her personally instead of the insipid piece she wrote on that vapid movie was the tipping point.

The amount of hours lost to it then other things which serve the site and community better alone is a pain in the arse. So I would guess that's why now.

I can understand the upset when you log in one day and the rules have changed but it is after all a private site and we have the privileges of posting as long as we adhere to the rules laid down.

We do how ever get to contribute to those rules and policy and to how they are implemented and we trust that it's for the good of the site and community but something have to change even if we don't like it so that the site can keep going and growing.

I seriously do not envy the team of AH mods who will have all manner of upset and aggro to deal with while explaining to posters but I am sure that the cat mods, admins and community manger will do thier best to back ye up and you are right if that's how it has to be in AH it has to be that way else where om the site.

dr.bollocko

Good stuff.
I'll think on it a few days and try and come back with some more stuff that might raise more questions / clear this bit of aggro up.

Bonito

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I suppose there is a certain amount of difficulty in saying what is and is not acceptable, I fully agree it's not a case of black and white.

To me, here is what I would be ok with:

• I don't like him, he talks a load of crap, IMO.
• Her article in the paper was complete nonsense, IMO.
• He hasn't a clue what he is talking about, IMO.

Would my edit not be more correct? From what has been said on here it's counted as defamation of character unless it's factual. So even though your hypothetical comments aren't too nasty, they're still defamation of character and leave an opening for boards to be sued. However, if you state that it is merely your opinion of the person and not factual, then boards.ie can't be sued. I'm open to being corrected of course but that's how I see it.

and here's what I wouldn't be ok with:

• He's a f**king retard
• She is a stupid cnut
• He is a clueless f**kwit

and add in there any kind of racist bigotry too. I am sure there is more.

Not a definitive list, but do you get the idea?

That's the kind of stuff posters would be banned for so yes I agreee with you but where's the line? A few minutes ago it was if you post something about someone that you'd get banned for if you posted it about anotehr member, you get banned, even though that person is on boards. Yet, in your 1st section that I quoted, you directly insulted someone. Albeit hypothetically but if I told a user that they were talking complete crap and I didn't like them because they talk rubbish, I'd probably get a warning for it.

So again we're back at square one. One person says "Yes, you can post this, but not this."

Then another person is saying "No, you can't past that or that."

Maybe the Terms of use need a massive going over to explain to us what we can and can't post.

If After Hours were a private forum, do google still archive it and can boards be sued for it's content if it contained content that was abusive or defamatory?

Terry

Thaedydal wrote: »

Insults can be defamation.

A thing can be true about a person but how you express your opinion of it can lead to the defaming of a person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation



So no abuse, really I do think that posters (even ah posters :P ) can be critical of people in the public eye with out being abusive.

I know there are sites out there where you can get away with saying anything you want but the majority of those are in the USA not here and Ireland is also such a small place and boards posts come up in the top 10 of links when someone googles.
Which the recent google ad pointed out.

What's that now?

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I think you might be. You said it above that you wouldn't normally ban somebody for calling somebody in the news a scumbag.

The following is a personal viewpoint from a member of the Irish public.


What's the deal with "BIFFO"?
My understanding of the meaning of this acronym is "Big Ignorant Fúcker From Offaly". This is constantly used in reference to our revered Taoiseach, Brian Cowen.
Here it is in the Irish Times: http://irishtimes.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
Indo: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/brian-goes-from-biffo-to-spliffo-893229.html
I could go on, but you get the point.

So here we have the leader of the country being, as AH would put it, personally insulted, on a regular basis in the print media of this country.
What's up with that?

Where's the uproar?
Why is BIFFO not being litigious?
Why is it that the leader of this country does not sue every single time he is referred to as BIFFO.
Is it just whiny little pussies who turn around and sue people every time something mentions them in a bad light?
If so, then these people truly are the scumbags, ****, cúnts and whatever else the good people of AH call them.

Or maybe I have the BIFFO thing wrong. The only definition I could find referring to Cowen as "BIFFO" was the one I mentioned.

Terry

Bonito wrote: »

If After Hours were a private forum, do google still archive it and can boards be sued for it's content if it contained content that was abusive or defamatory?

Private forum are not accessible to any search engines, other than the one boards provides for members of these forums.

If you're a member of a private forum, a new post will be listed on the front page when you are logged in, but not when you are logged out.

Bonito

Terry wrote: »

What's the deal with "BIFFO"?
My understanding of the meaning of this acronym is "Big Ignorant Fúcker From Offaly". This is constantly used in reference to our revered Taoiseach, Brian Cowen.
Here it is in the Irish Times: http://irishtimes.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
Indo: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/brian-goes-from-biffo-to-spliffo-893229.html
I could go on, but you get the point.

So here we have the leader of the country being, as AH would put it, personally insulted, on a regular basis in the print media of this country.
What's up with that?

Where's the uproar?
Why is BIFFO not being litigious?
Why is it that the leader of this country does not sue every single time he is referred to as BIFFO.
Is it just whiny little pussies who turn around and sue people every time something mentions them in a bad light?
If so, then these people truly are the scumbags, ****, cúnts and whatever else the good people of AH call them.

Or maybe I have the BIFFO thing wrong. The only definition I could find referring to Cowen as "BIFFO" was the one I mentioned.

Massive plus one on this. Not only on boards but nearly every single newspaper in Ireland refer to Cowen as BIFFO. We all know what it translates to but yet they get away with it and I suppose so does boards' users.

Maybe this should be a major FF discussion (If that's even still motoring along?) and sort out what exactly is and isn't allowed.

It's extremely patronising when the admins are having a fit saying "OMG I'm, like, so scared that you can't understand. Like, do you like, knowwww how much trouble we could get in to?"

Just tell us what we can and can't say and make a definitive "Do not cross" line for us. It's infinitely better than being so pedantic and patronising.

My name is URL

Bonito wrote: »

Just tell us what we can and can't say and make a definitive "Do not cross" line for us. It's infinitely better than being so pedantic and patronising.

I reckon that the line is drawn between those who are likely to take legal action, and those who are not.. simple as that really. I don't agree with it, but I guess it's easier to comply with threats than it is to defend the person drawing them

Nevyn

Terry wrote: »

What's that now?

This is an ad for Google made by google and used internationally
first link it shows 5 seconds in is boards.ie a thread from 2006.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-WRn9keARE

Terry

Thaedydal wrote: »

This is an ad for Google made by google and used internationally
first link it shows 5 seconds in is boards.ie a thread from 2006.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-WRn9keARE

That's ****ing brilliant. I hadn't seen that.

RoundyMooney

Thaedydal wrote: »

This is an ad for Google made by google and used internationally
first link it shows 5 seconds in is boards.ie a thread from 2006.

<snip>

I always thought google results were location dependent, explaining why boards.ie was always high in my google pages.

Genuinely educated otherwise, cheers

Bonito

Is this thread going to be deleted? We don't want another threat of legal action now, do we?

Jazzy

Bonito wrote: »

Is this thread going to be deleted? We don't want another threat of legal action now, do we?

theres a good point.

it sounds like that if some people had their way here, nearly all emotion would be taken out of boards

K-9

Bonito wrote: »

Is this thread going to be deleted? We don't want another threat of legal action now, do we?

Would be a shame if threads like that couldn't be in AH any more. He does kind of bring it on himself.

I suppose the video is open to derision as is an opinion piece in a National news paper.

RoundyMooney

K-9 wrote: »

Would be a shame if threads like that couldn't be in AH any more. He does kind of bring it on himself.

I suppose the video is open to derision as is an opinion piece in a National news paper.

Bit similiar to the the one that got nuked from orbit then

Bonito

K-9 wrote: »

Would be a shame if threads like that couldn't be in AH any more. He does kind of bring it on himself.

I suppose the video is open to derision as is an opinion piece in a National news paper.

Not at all. Sure, their youtube profile is public so their facebook/myspace/bebo etc is fair game. Fair game means people can call them what they want and get away with it.


/tongue in cheek.

Tempted to use the rolleyes smiley.

K-9

Bonito wrote: »

Not at all. Sure, their youtube profile is public so their facebook/myspace/bebo etc is fair game. Fair game means people can call them what they want and get away with it.


/tongue in cheek.

Tempted to use the rolleyes smiley.

I'm confused now!

Totally see your point.

Okay, say my facebook profile is public (it isn't btw!), is that fair game?