Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Removing the MCD stickies...

  • 30-05-2009 11:52am
    #1
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Due to recent High Court rulings, http://bit.ly/13hkfh , we are removing the MCD stickies and allowing discussion of MCD events.

    There still exists a pending court case between MCD and Boards.ie and
    I would like to remind you all that it is a contempt to court to discuss any current case (MCD related or otherwise) so please do NOT do that.

    Normal libel laws still apply and we will remove that which is brought to our attention as per our requirements under that ruling. Please do not libel anyone.

    Thanks for your time and attention

    DeV.
    Post edited by Shield on


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,635 ✭✭✭tribulus


    Thanks for the update.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    Excellent, that was making discussion in the music forums difficult at times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    MC who? Wut?

    never noticed the stickies.

    :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Stick...Ies...?

    *shrug*


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,042 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Should keep it against the rules lol


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    Excellent, common sense prevails with that ruling :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Could someone give me a one sentence precis of that ruling?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,042 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Judge - "Cop yerselfs on"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    mike65 wrote: »
    Could someone give me a one sentence precis of that ruling?

    MCD

    ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    mike65 wrote: »
    Could someone give me a one sentence precis of that ruling?
    Betfair are counted as an intermediate service provider when it comes to their chatroom, hence come under protection of the E-Commerce Directive.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,082 ✭✭✭✭Random


    Not really into that whole legal jargon but it's nice to see things coming together for Boards :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    DeVore wrote: »
    Normal libel laws still apply and we will remove that which is brought to our attention as per our requirements under that ruling. Please do not libel anyone.
    I havent gone through the ruling, nor do i intend to, but in terms of libelling an artist promoted by MCD how will this be moderated?

    If an artist performs and suck majors balls, and there is a thread in relation to this, the lilkelihood is that this artist, (not MCD) will be subject to alot of abuse.

    Does this count as libel? Does this actually require moderation? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Opinion is not libel (allegedly).


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,042 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    mike65 wrote: »
    Opinion is not libel (allegedly).

    Neither is truth


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    So I've picked my way through the judgment and as far as I can tell it means that boards has the protection of the E-Commerce Directive. However I'm uncertain as to what this means for boards, and more specifically why where allowed to discuss MCD events now and not before.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Neither is truth

    Without getting into it, the onus of proof is on you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,042 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Boston wrote: »
    Without getting into it, the onus of proof is on you.

    On a public forum it wouldn't be too hard to prove, once theres agreement on the issue.

    I don't see the point in allowing discussion simply because of a precedent being set in another case though. If MCD were so adamant about not wanting any negative discussion about them, then Boards should be equally as adamant to not allow any advertising for them, imO


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Kind of going on from Captain Darling's question, if MCD puts on a show and the whole thing is badly organised, are we still not to discuss it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    On a public forum it wouldn't be too hard to prove, once theres agreement on the issue.

    I'm having a hard time understanding your point. I think you may have a specific scenario in mind. You may be able to "prove" to my mind something, that doesn't mean you'll do the same with a judge. I don't think you fully understand what level of proof would be required.
    I don't see the point in allowing discussion simply because of a precedent being set in another case though. If MCD were so adamant about not wanting any negative discussion about them, then Boards should be equally as adamant to not allow any advertising for them, imO

    Good question, which is basically my question. I thought the reason for the stickies was to prevent negative comment about MCD. How does this ruling afford boards-LTD with protection against that?
    humanji wrote: »
    Kind of going on from Captain Darling's question, if MCD puts on a show and the whole thing is badly organised, are we still not to discuss it?

    Use as little censorship as possible. Fair enough to remove topics from discussion if they damage the site, but to do it out of spite and malice is just petty and small.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,757 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    Useful to know..

    Awwwww... Reported Posts in the Music forum will be non-existant!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Boston wrote: »
    So I've picked my way through the judgment and as far as I can tell it means that boards has the protection of the E-Commerce Directive. However I'm uncertain as to what this means for boards, and more specifically why where allowed to discuss MCD events now and not before.

    It means that if a hypothetical website such as a chatroom has information posted by users, the website owners are not liable in law for, among other things, defamatory comments, provided that:

    a) the website owners were not aware of the defamatory comments,
    b) when they do become aware of the defamatory comments they act quickly to remove those comments.

    So in our hypothetical website, if there are supervisors, moderators for example, who view all or most posts and if they come across a defamatory comment they delete the post, close the thread and/or punish the poster as quickly as possible, the website will not be liable for defamation.

    As to what it means for boards, who knows? Who says it means anything for boards? Who says there is anything going on between boards and....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    It means that if a hypothetical website such as a chatroom has information posted by users, the website owners are not liable in law for, among other things, defamatory comments, provided that:

    a) the website owners were not aware of the defamatory comments,
    b) when they do become aware of the defamatory comments they act quickly to remove those comments.

    So in our hypothetical website, if there are supervisors, moderators for example, who view all or most posts and if they come across a defamatory comment they delete the post, close the thread and/or punish the poster as quickly as possible, the website will not be liable for defamation.

    As to what it means for boards, who knows? Who says it means anything for boards? Who says there is anything going on between boards and....

    Hold on a second, if I take you up correctly, posts which present MCD in a negative light would have to be removed?


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Boston wrote: »
    Hold on a second, if I take you up correctly, posts which present MCD in a negative light would have to be removed?

    I don't know what you're talking about I'm sure, but in the general scheme of things it's a big thumbs up from Judge Clarke for any internet forum that has a good moderation policy.

    Defamatory comments of any party were never allowed on boards, and still aren't. But so long as the moderation is done expeditiously, boards.ie aren't liable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,042 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    I don't know what you're talking about I'm sure, but in the general scheme of things it's a big thumbs up from Judge Clarke for any internet forum that has a good moderation policy.

    Defamatory comments of any party were never allowed on boards, and still aren't. But so long as the moderation is done expeditiously, boards.ie aren't liable.


    That's stupid though, really

    Why the need for difficult decisions regarding what is defamatory (negative) from complimentary..? It adds a workload for mods I'm sure and to be blatantly honest, is a slap in the face for anyone that wishes to convey their own experience of MCD


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    That's stupid though, really

    Why the need for difficult decisions regarding what is defamatory (negative) from complimentary..? It adds a workload for mods I'm sure and to be blatantly honest, is a slap in the face for anyone that wishes to convey their own experience of MCD

    Well mods already have the task of weeding out any potentially defamatory comments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,042 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Well mods already have the task of weeding out any potentially defamatory comments.


    Yeah but when the comments are made against a corporation it doesn't seem to be as big of a deal, look at all the Eircom bashing that goes on..

    My point is that reversing the stance about MCD might seem like raising a visible barrier, but really it's adding more invisible ones.

    What constitutes defamation in this case..? bad reviews...and negativity towards the company?

    Who's making the call..? Mods..? ..NO!

    Ultimately it will be MCD that decide what is acceptable discussion, and that imho is unacceptable


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    I don't know what you're talking about I'm sure, but in the general scheme of things it's a big thumbs up from Judge Clarke for any internet forum that has a good moderation policy.

    Defamatory comments of any party were never allowed on boards, and still aren't. But so long as the moderation is done expeditiously, boards.ie aren't liable.

    Please less of the obfuscation, its naturally quiet confusing. I'm not discussing the case, I'm discussing the boards.ie policy on topics relating to the MCD events. I think i get where you're coming from now, you're taking the definition of Defamatory as being negative and false. Once it's defined that way and the moderators know it, grand.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,634 ✭✭✭✭Richard Dower


    DeVore wrote: »
    Due to recent High Court rulings, http://bit.ly/13hkfh , we are removing the MCD stickies and allowing discussion of MCD events.

    There still exists a pending court case between MCD and Boards.ie and
    I would like to remind you all that it is a contempt to court to discuss any current case (MCD related or otherwise) so please do NOT do that.

    Normal libel laws still apply and we will remove that which is brought to our attention as per our requirements under that ruling. Please do not libel anyone.

    Thanks for your time and attention

    DeV.

    So it's now OK to say that MCD are scumbags...right?, or is that libel?


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Boston wrote: »
    Please less of the obfuscation, its naturally quiet confusing. I'm not discussing the case, I'm discussing the boards.ie policy on topics relating to the MCD events. I think i get where you're coming from now, you're taking the definition of Defamatory as being negative and false. Once it's defined that way and the moderators know it, grand.

    I've nothing to do with boards.ie policy. If you don't understand what defamatory means, look it up in wikipedia. Most if not all fora already have rules on defamation, so it should not be a large strech for them to apply the same to MCD, now that the blanket ban has been removed.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    I don't know what you're talking about I'm sure, but in the general scheme of things it's a big thumbs up from Judge Clarke for any internet forum that has a good moderation policy.

    Defamatory comments of any party were never allowed on boards, and still aren't. But so long as the moderation is done expeditiously, boards.ie aren't liable.
    I've nothing to do with boards.ie policy. If you don't understand what defamatory means, look it up in wikipedia. Most if not all fora already have rules on defamation, so it should not be a large strech for them to apply the same to MCD, now that the blanket ban has been removed.

    Maybe instead of being flippant, you should look it up yourself.
    In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) 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

    I think a lot of people would take defamation to mean any negative comment. I understood it to mean negative and false, however your post suggested you where referring to any simply negative comment. I also fail to see how this isn't related to the MCD-events policy, since that is the subject of the topic. Perhaps you'd care to explain yourself more fully?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement