AH, 'Celebrities' and 'Abuse'

Bonito

K-9 wrote: »

I'm confused now!

Totally see your point.

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

In some users eyes, yes. In boards eyes, from a legal perspective, absolutely not. Yet, that other thread is still there but the other was deleted.

Inconsistency is the only consistency around here.

Tom Dunne

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.

Wouldn't it be great if life was like that?

Where everything was simple, straight forward and there were no grey areas.

Well newsflash, life isn't like that. Would you like the mods/cmods/admins to provide you with a list of approved slaggings and an approved list of public figures to which these slaggings can be applied?

We don't know what B-list celebrity is going to take offence to something said on the site. What is insulting to one public figure may not be insulting to another.

Guidelines can be provided, but there comes a point where people are quite simply going to have to use their own cop on.

Bonito

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if life was like that?

Where everything was simple, straight forward and there were no grey areas.

Well newsflash, life isn't like that. Would you like the mods/cmods/admins to provide you with a list of approved slaggings and an approved list of public figures to which these slaggings can be applied?

We don't know what B-list celebrity is going to offence to something said on the site. What is insulting to one public figure may not be insulting to another.

Guidelines can be provided , but there comes a point where people are quite simply going to have to use their own cop on.

I'll have this one please. Ah, to be old and wise.

P. Breathnach

Tom Dunne wrote: »

... there comes a point where people are quite simply going to have to use their own cop on.

That's asking for a lot, more than we are likely to get from all members of this community.

Is the world in any way a better place because somebody hiding behind the anonymity of a bulletin board uses that cover in order to abuse another person? I see no upside to the use of vulgar abuse and two downsides that I consider to be important:

• people might be hurt
• the host (boards.ie in this case) could be exposed to legal liability.

OutlawPete

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's asking for a lot, more than we are likely to get from all members of this community.

Exactly.

Let's not forget, this is the community that has an element that will get up in arms and start Feedback threads if they are told they can't make jokes about public figures on the day that they pass away.

Bonito

OutlawPete wrote: »

Exactly.

Let's not forget, this is the community that gets up in arms and start Feedback threads when they are told they can't make jokes about public figures on the day that they pass away.

:eek: I never did anything of the sort!

Tom Dunne

Bonito wrote: »

I'll have this one please. Ah, to be old and wise.

It's in the post.

And who said I was wise?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's asking for a lot, more than we are likely to get from all members of this community.

Sadly that is true. And then we move back into accusations of heavy-handed moderation/adminning. Striking a balance is what it is all about.

Bonito wrote: »

:eek: I never did anything of the sort!

Not yet.

juma

brummytom - Last week you were the one who said something along the line of "Tom O'C looks likes a c**t". Just because someone is in the spotlight does not mean they should accept idiotic things like that being said about them.

Now if you want to abuse someone's song or make fun of something stupid they did in public maybe that should be allowed.

brummytom

juma wrote: »

brummytom - Last week you were the one who said something along the line of "Tom O'C looks likes a c**t". Just because someone is in the spotlight does not mean they should accept idiotic things like that being said about them.

Now if you want to abuse someone's song or make fun of something stupid they did in public maybe that should be allowed.

I think it was 'massive cunt'.

As I've said in this thread, I have no knowledge of libel laws. In the post you mentioned, I clearly stated I didn't know anything about the bloke, and that my first impression was: 'he's a massive cunt.

If you think that's idiotic, fine - you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree. Maybe a tad harsh if he was sensitive (which he obviously was); but the vast majority of people in that thread agreed.

But does that qualify as defamy? I merely said he 'looked' like one, I didn't say he was one - 'don't insult people' aside - it that still defamation?

Terry

I miss Hulla. He always helped with stuff like this.

pickarooney

brummytom wrote: »

I think it was 'massive cunt'.

As I've said in this thread, I have no knowledge of libel laws. In the post you mentioned, I clearly stated I didn't know anything about the bloke, and that my first impression was: 'he's a massive cunt.

If you think that's idiotic, fine - you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree. Maybe a tad harsh if he was sensitive (which he obviously was); but the vast majority of people in that thread agreed.

But does that qualify as defamy? I merely said he 'looked' like one, I didn't say he was one - 'don't insult people' aside - it that still defamation?

Maybe if you said 'he looks to me like a massive сunt' it would be statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact?

P. Breathnach

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe if you said 'he looks to me like a massive сunt' it would be statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact?

But it's still a nasty personal comment. What purpose does it serve?

pickarooney

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it's still a nasty personal comment. What purpose does it serve?

About as much purpose as any expression of an opinion - the square root of bubkis.

Hank_Jones

Where is the line drawn regarding threads?
Could there not just be a mod warning in certain threads?

Thought this was a perfectly good thread.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055991795

Obviously there are going to be people that will spout nonsense,
but it seems like we are close to having a complete blanket ban so as to not have to deal with anything....ever.

brianthebard

The funny thing about the AOR/negative equity thread is there was tons of stuff posted making fun of her ability as a journalist and her education, but it was only locked because her public facebook profile was posted and commented upon. According to Dev's post at the start of this thread there was plenty of material that was potentially defamatory but it was only this last action and the making fun of pictures that was considered bad form, even though its probably the least likely to be construed as libel by the posters of AH at any rate. So for the admins that still don't know why people can't see the distinction, do you maybe realise that so far the admin/legal team haven't been able through their own actions to show there even is a distinction? Because right now from the outside looking in it looks a lot like threads and discussion are being banned on a whim, or out of fear, but not out of any real threat.

Bonito

Woah, we have a live one. This one has looooads in it! I'd say there'll be about 15 threats of legal action on Monday morning.

pickarooney

Maybe it should be an opt-in thing. We e-mail every celeb on the planet and ask them are they OK with a bit of slagging on an internet forum of if they're big scared Jessies.

P. Breathnach

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe it should be an opt-in thing. We e-mail every celeb on the planet and ask them are they OK with a bit of slagging on an internet forum of if they're big scared Jessies.

Slagging, as I understand it, tends to be good-natured, often affectionate. The sort of abuse that we are discussing here does not meet that criterion. And if people make it clear that they do not want to be subjected to the vulgar, often vicious, abuse that some people here seem to like, it is unfair to describe them as "big scared Jessies": it's effectively abusing people for objecting to being abused.

dr.bollocko

Look here's my problem with this issue. Right now there is a sticky in AH about this.
It reads as follows:

Dav wrote: »

I've had to delete the Tom O'C thread due to a threat of legal action against the site.

After Hours posters need to understand that personal abuse of someone like this gets us in trouble. It has to stop. We've already had this discussion not that long ago in relation to a reporter who posted an article some found to be nonsense which turned into nothing but personal abuse of her as a person which had no relevance or bearing on the thread.

I'm often told that AH can do serious discussion, but any credibility this forum earns is shot apart by threads like these. There's a very simple rule of thumb that will avoid most of this sort of stress - if you'd get banned for posting it to/about a fellow Boardsie, then don't post it - be they a celeb, someone in the media, a politician etc.

Thank you.

Dav
Boards.ie Community Manager

Simple and I'm afraid if it was enforced AH would be a ghost town. Treating like a celebrity like a boardsie in terms of abuse is simply not something I am willing to indulge in.
I can definitely see the merits in tightening up what can be done and not done and talking about crossing a line to rumour or serious personal comments. I don't want to stand by and watch boards get in legal trouble and I don't tend to partake or condone the nasty stuff like that Tom O'C thread or whatever. But the above statement is completely unworkable and yet it sits stickied to after hours.
That's my problem.
It puts me and I believe, by extension, my co-moderators in a frankly crappy position. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. So we'd look at the realistic issue of people likely to sue, the indo journalists of this world, other assorted wannabes, never were's, and mightabin's and couple that with the points at which threads like this cross the line badly (Just mouthing abuse with no substance to the post, posting private info, making up stuff and generally posting unprovable rubbish) and tighten up there. That's a reasonable way of making steps forward on both sides.
Apologies for making waves and I get the sentiment behind what Dav was saying but the reality of his suggestions, well, it's just not going to work.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Slagging, as I understand it, tends to be good-natured, often affectionate. The sort of abuse that we are discussing here does not meet that criterion. And if people make it clear that they do not want to be subjected to the vulgar, often vicious, abuse that some people here seem to like, it is unfair to describe them as "big scared Jessies": it's effectively abusing people for objecting to being abused.

This kind of thinking is what I'm talking about. Vulgar, personal stuff and vicious abuse can be snipped without a blanket rule of any sort.

pickarooney

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Apologies for making waves and I get the sentiment behind what Dav was saying but the reality of his suggestions, well, it's just not going to work.

The reality of the situation is that there is an increasing overlap between 'celeb' and boardsie. Of the three big recent threads that I can think of which were started about someone in the paper, all three (O'Riordan, O'C and the IDF girl) have boards accounts.

It's not completely impossible that Mary Harney sign up to boards.ie or that a regular member has a number one hit single.

Dav

There's no need to appologise Dr B. I'm as keen as you are to find a solution. What do you suggest?

Normally we rely on people reporting posts that are troublesome. However, this doesn't happen in AH because people don't seem to realise what constitutes said trouble. To be fair, I don't expect people to be fully aware of the ins and outs of the legal system, which is why I posted the rule of thumb above. I'm not sure why sticking to that is a problem - we ask it of all our members when talking about each other - what makes it so unworkable?

I'm not trying to be thick headed about this, I genuinely don't understand why this is not viable?

seawolf145

brummytom wrote: »

I don't mean to be one of these 'WE WANT FREE SPEECH" numpties, I understand boards is, above all, a company.

A company?
Who owns it? Kim ill sung?

P. Breathnach

Dav wrote: »

...
Normally we rely on people reporting posts that are troublesome. However, this doesn't happen in AH because people don't seem to realise what constitutes said trouble. To be fair, I don't expect people to be fully aware of the ins and outs of the legal system, which is why I posted the rule of thumb above. I'm not sure why sticking to that is a problem - we ask it of all our members when talking about each other - what makes it so unworkable?
...

If another member attacked me in a forum that I read, I have the opportunity to deal with that attack, but Boards policy is to save me the trouble by dealing with it (whether for me, or for the general good of Boards, or for some other reason is irrelevant).

I would suppose that if somebody went to AH to launch an attack on me, then it would be picked up and dealt with (I don't frequent AH, so I can't be sure -- half the threads there might be about me, for all I know).

Why should we afford less protection to people who are not members, or presumed not to be members? If anything, we owe them a little more protection because they did not sign up to anything here.

I don't see it only in terms of potential legal liability; there should also be some level of ordinary decency, a level that might be indicated by "don't be a dick".

dr.bollocko

Dav wrote: »

There's no need to appologise Dr B. I'm as keen as you are to find a solution. What do you suggest?

Normally we rely on people reporting posts that are troublesome. However, this doesn't happen in AH because people don't seem to realise what constitutes said trouble. To be fair, I don't expect people to be fully aware of the ins and outs of the legal system, which is why I posted the rule of thumb above. I'm not sure why sticking to that is a problem - we ask it of all our members when talking about each other - what makes it so unworkable?

I'm not trying to be thick headed about this, I genuinely don't understand why this is not viable?

Because when a story breaks about a celebrity, say Mel Gibson being an abusive racist for example, people are going to say things like "what a racist abusive asshole" and I think that that's a pretty reasonable statement. See my above Gary Glitter reference. On an Irish level I guess that Callely fella would be the latest likely target.
I don't think it reasonable to ask for the likes of these people to be offered the same protection as a fellow boardsie so the idea of a blanket rule doesn't work. At least not in my head. People have strong opinions about celebrities and yes, some of them involve slagging. Some of them worse. Extreme stuff or diatribes could be snipped out quite easily but the general rule of thumb you are suggesting puts mods in the middle to a certain extent in situations where celebrities are shown to have done something illegal or horrible or whatever and is asking us to defend these people who have proven themselves to be drunk drivers, wife beaters, rapists, paedos, murderers, tax evaders and thieves etc.

P. Breathnach

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Because when a story breaks about a celebrity, say Mel Gibson being an abusive racist for example, people are going to say things like "what a racist abusive asshole" ...

If I posted here saying the sort of thing that Mel Gibson said, you would probably be allowed by moderators to call me an racist abusive asshole. That's not abuse coming from nowhere: it's a comment based on his behaviour. Sure, it is expressed in a strong way, but it's appropriate in its context.

dr.bollocko

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If I posted here saying the sort of thing that Mel Gibson said, you would probably be allowed by moderators to call me an racist abusive asshole. That's not abuse coming from nowhere: it's a comment based on his behaviour. Sure, it is expressed in a strong way, but it's appropriate in its context.

On after Hours even a racist abusive asshole gets protected from being called a racist abusive asshole directly on thread.
Their racist posts will get them banned but a poster calling another poster a racist abusive asshole is not OK and will likely be acted upon also.
It's either feeding trolls or thread spoiling. And we've had plenty of experience in dealing with racist abusive assholes. The problem being that one person's opinion of what is racist is different from another person's. Unfortunately it's not always as clear cut as people chucking about the N word. If somebody said something like what Gibson said then it'd be reasonable to apply the assumption that they are in fact a racist abusive asshole however as I said that's not so straight forward when a poster is called a racist because he's concerned about the level of immigration or the number of asylum seekers or something like that. What Dav's sticky says is that it's not OK to insult Mr. Gibson in a reasonable manner proportionate to what he has done by giving him the same level of protection as boards posters.

Chips Lovell

I think there's a problem in here in that a rule that serves one purpose is being extended to serve another.

My understanding is that personal insults, i.e. saying someone is an asshole or whatever, are banned on boards not because they're potentially libellous, but to facilitate a reasonable discussion. In other words, you can't have a proper discussion if it descends into a flame war.

You can't libel someone by stating an opinion. So if I say you're a thief and can't prove it, that's libel. If I say you're an idiot, it's opinion. You can't "prove" someone is an idiot or not.

So if someone, like a public figure, isn't a participant in a debate here why should posters have to treat them if they are?

The other issue to consider is that libel is a rich person's game. Even a blatently worthless case could cost time and money to defend.

The Recliner

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Because when a story breaks about a celebrity, say Mel Gibson being an abusive racist for example, people are going to say things like "what a racist abusive asshole" and I think that that's a pretty reasonable statement. See my above Gary Glitter reference. On an Irish level I guess that Callely fella would be the latest likely target.
I don't think it reasonable to ask for the likes of these people to be offered the same protection as a fellow boardsie so the idea of a blanket rule doesn't work. At least not in my head. People have strong opinions about celebrities and yes, some of them involve slagging. Some of them worse. Extreme stuff or diatribes could be snipped out quite easily but the general rule of thumb you are suggesting puts mods in the middle to a certain extent in situations where celebrities are shown to have done something illegal or horrible or whatever and is asking us to defend these people who have proven themselves to be drunk drivers, wife beaters, rapists, paedos, murderers, tax evaders and thieves etc.

I guess a problem occurs when people are looking for consistancy in Mod decisions and they see someone saying ranting about Mel Gibson and calling him this that and the other and go ok it must be ok to say that about someone on Boards

I am not saying it is right and it is not the sort of logic I subscribe too but it is the way some people think

A blanket rule is consistant and seems like a good idea

In saying that I agree with what you have said above and think it is the most reasonable stance for the AH Mods to take

P. Breathnach

dr.bollocko wrote: »

On after Hours even a racist abusive asshole gets protected from being called a racist abusive asshole directly on thread.

You're right, of course. I fell (or even jumped) into the gap between condemning the agent and condemning the act.

Their racist posts will get them banned but a poster calling another poster a racist abusive asshole is not OK and will likely be acted upon also.
It's either feeding trolls or thread spoiling. And we've had plenty of experience in dealing with racist abusive assholes. The problem being that one person's opinion of what is racist is different from another person's. Unfortunately it's not always as clear cut as people chucking about the N word. If somebody said something like what Gibson said then it'd be reasonable to apply the assumption that they are in fact a racist abusive asshole however as I said that's not so straight forward when a poster is called a racist because he's concerned about the level of immigration or the number of asylum seekers or something like that.

You would accept, I suppose, that a post can be described as racist or abusive, so that I would be allowed say "what you say looks to me like racist abuse"? That leaves us with the residual problem of using the word "asshole"

What Dav's sticky says is that it's not OK to insult Mr. Gibson in a reasonable manner proportionate to what he has done by giving him the same level of protection as even as boards posters.

It might be safer to err on the side of caution. Is there anything much wrong with attacking Mel Gibson's acts rather than attacking Mel Gibson? [I might be expressing a style preference here, in that I personally believe that a criticism that is expressed in measured terms actually works better -- not lowering oneself to the level of the person whose acts I disapprove.]

oscarBravo

el tonto wrote: »

You can't libel someone by stating an opinion.

That's quite simply not true, and it's the sort of misunderstanding that can get this site into trouble.

Of course the expression of an opinion can be defamatory.