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

rosullivan

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.

tbh

out of interest, why do you think it's unlawful? The admins own the site, they set the terms and conditions, and they are entitled to protect themselves. Do you think they have an obligation of service towards you or something?

Ron DMC

Privately owned site blah blah blah, Admins can do what they like and they don't like people threatening legal action etc.

In all fairness if you play by the rules, you'll be respected as such and shouldn't ever have cause to threaten boards with any legal proceedings.

Kintarō Hattori

Do you know the reason why that announcement is there? If you did you wouldn't be complaining. And no they are not so inclined to ban you just for mentioning it.

rosullivan

1. No I don't know why the announcement is there, because the announcement doesn't mention it. So your cryptic comments mean nothing to me unfortunately. Why don't the administrators publicise the reason?

2. I can see some (small) justification for banning threats of legal action. However, there is no justification for banning "legalese" or "legal language". One man's legalese is another man's attempt to be accurate. It is a bit like the Chinese government saying "Of course you have political freedom, just don't ever criticise us in public".

3. This is an issue of free speech. Effectively the administrators are saying that (a) they can ban you if they don't like what you say 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. Free speech doesn't work that way. That's why weird, disgusting and wrong (!) pornography is allowed in the U.S. - people may strongly disagree with your tastes, but you have a right to those tastes without fear of censorship (solong as no one is hurt by them). If the Boards.ie is going to masquerade as an open discussion board, then lose the censorship. Or else put a big honest notice on the front page calling it "CensoredBoards.ie".

Just my 2 cents.:)

Insect Overlord

Step 1: Build a bridge.
Step 2: Get over it.

rosullivan

An Fhile wrote: »

Step 1: Build a bridge.
Step 2: Get over it.

Ahhh, it was only a matter of time until the administrative sycophants began to attack me for having an opinion (and of course I fully respect their right to do that ).

So, I'm finished with this topic - I just wanted to raise it for discussion. Please continue to discuss or ignore as you wish.:)

Hobbes

rosullivan wrote: »

This is a truly bizarre announcement. Are we living in China now?

It has always been this way on boards.ie for as long as I can remember. My guess is the annoucement is that a lot of people are going "OMG I GOIN 2SUE!" thinking they are cool.

Clearly you did not get any legal advice before you posted the announcement

Based on that which should not be named I guess Boards.ie have a lawyer on call if they need to.

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

No one is saying you can't be critical of boards.ie. You just can't threaten people with legal action.

javaboy

rosullivan wrote: »

1. No I don't know why the announcement is there, because the announcement doesn't mention it. So your cryptic comments mean nothing to me unfortunately. Why don't the administrators publicise the reason?

It doesn't have to mention it but here's my summary of it:
The use of legalese when reporting a post indicates that the user may go down the legal route. Boards doesn't want people going down the legal route when there are other less drastic options available. It's a lot of trouble for Boards if they end up in the middle of a libel case so they'd rather avoid it.

2. I can see some (small) justification for banning threats of legal action. However, there is no justification for banning "legalese" or "legal language". One man's legalese is another man's attempt to be accurate.

I think it's quite clear where normal language stops and legalese begins. "This post is personal abuse" is ok. "This post may be slanderous/libellous" is quite clearly legalese and implies that if the mods don't take action, the poster will (legally speaking). Terms like defamation of character are quite obviously legalese.

It is a bit like the Chinese government saying "Of course you have political freedom, just don't ever criticise us in public".

I hope the irony of posting this criticism publicly on the Feedback forum doesn't escape you. :rolleyes:

3. This is an issue of free speech. Effectively the administrators are saying that (a) they can ban you if they don't like what you say 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. Free speech doesn't work that way. That's why weird, disgusting and wrong (!) pornography is allowed in the U.S. - people may strongly disagree with your tastes, but you have a right to those tastes without fear of censorship (solong as no one is hurt by them). If the Boards.ie is going to masquerade as an open discussion board, then lose the censorship. Or else put a big honest notice on the front page calling it "CensoredBoards.ie".

Just my 2 cents.:)

There is no free speech on a privately owned website. Taking your idea to the extreme means they shouldn't be allowed ban you for posting legal porn either. Their website. Their rules.

P.S. CensoredBoards.ie doesn't have the same ring to it.


EDIT: One last thing to add. You are perfectly entitled to go down the legal route if you want. There's nothing Boards.ie can do to stop you. They're just not obliged to continue providing their services to you if you do.

Kintarō Hattori

rosullivan wrote: »

1. No I don't know why the announcement is there, because the announcement doesn't mention it. So your cryptic comments mean nothing to me unfortunately. Why don't the administrators publicise the reason?

I'm being genuinely helpful here but you really should have trawled some threads, done some searching on the topic. Posts such as yours have been seen in the past and users have responded to them. There is a good valid reason that the announcement is there and it only takes a little looking to find the answer.

Honestly if you had taken the time to put some effort into it, you wouldn't have needed to have posted this at all.

Insect Overlord

rosullivan wrote:

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

It's also worth pointing out that this is not a dictatorship with designs on ruling the nation. It's a website. It's a damn good site.

I'll post again on Sunday!

/ends post, logs out, leaves for 3 night trip

tbh

rosullivan wrote: »

Ahhh, it was only a matter of time until the administrative sycophants began to attack me for having an opinion (and of course I fully respect their right to do that ).

So, I'm finished with this topic - I just wanted to raise it for discussion. Please continue to discuss or ignore as you wish.:)

of course, we are disagreeing with you because we are sycophants, it's got nothing to do with the fact that we can agree with the admins on this. Listen, is there any law against me calling your mother a whore? No. If I was talking to my friends in the pub and I called your mother a whore, could you go to the police? no. How about if you invited me to a party in your house, and I called your mother a whore, would you kick me out? You would? YOU FACIST! WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH??!

javaboy

tbh wrote: »

YOU FACIST!

I'm a facist. No time for ugly people at all.

seamus

You're getting confused between the concept of a privately-owned website and a democratic republic. Boards is one of these things, it is not the other.

There are a number of reasons why a legal threat will result in a site ban.

The primary reason why it occurs is because someone who is going to make a legal threat against the site has no interest in what is good for this site and has no interest in forwarding the spirit of discussion which is fostered on this site. Therefore they are not allowed.

It is not boards.ie who is trying to stifle your words, it's the people who make legal threats.

This has been discussed already in feedback, if you do a search you'll find similar posts by me and others. We act in the way that we deem is best for the site. Anyone who threatens that goal gets removed. Dead simple.

And to clarify - "threatening" that goal does not include criticism of the site. Constructive criticism is just that, constructive, and by definition is in the interests of the site.

Dades

OP: I have a reasonable point to make so don't freak out.

USER: I disagree with your point beca...

OP: OMFG STOP OPPRESSING ME!!11!eleven1!

tallaght01

That announcement always reminds me of a conversation i had with some lawyers in an office I worked in when i was a student. They were talkiong about some case where a premises (think it was a bar) banned a guy because he was suing them.
The judge in court was heavily critical of the premises in his ruling, as he said it provides a disincentive for people to avail of their judicial rights.

They reckoned judges take a very dim view of anyone who sanctions a person for taking legal action.

Now, I'm no lawyer, and my law knowledge doesn't extend much further than a few episodes of matlock, and owning "my cousin vinny" on DVD but it's just a convo i always think about when I see that notice.

I could be totally wrong though, it was just some people's opinions, and it was a good few years ago.

Ponster

rosullivan wrote: »

3. This is an issue of free speech.

Just my 2 cents.:)

As has already been pointed out, there is no free speech on boards.ie

I suggest you Google "free speech Ireland" and check out what should be the very first result from www.digitalrights.ie

Tom Dunne

rosullivan wrote: »

3. This is an issue of free speech. Effectively the administrators are saying that (a) they can ban you if they don't like what you say 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. Free speech doesn't work that way. That's why weird, disgusting and wrong (!) pornography is allowed in the U.S. - people may strongly disagree with your tastes, but you have a right to those tastes without fear of censorship (solong as no one is hurt by them). If the Boards.ie is going to masquerade as an open discussion board, then lose the censorship. Or else put a big honest notice on the front page calling it "CensoredBoards.ie".

Just my 2 cents.:)

Here's an idea - go set up your own website, invite loads of people in, let them say whatever they want about whomever they want.

Then see how long you and your website lasts.

tbh

tallaght01 wrote: »

That announcement always reminds me of a conversation i had with some lawyers in an office I worked in when i was a student. They were talkiong about some case where a premises (think it was a bar) banned a guy because he was suing them.
The judge in court was heavily critical of the premises in his ruling, as he said it provides a disincentive for people to avail of their judicial rights.

They reckoned judges take a very dim view of anyone who sanctions a person for taking legal action.

Now, I'm no lawyer, and my law knowledge doesn't extend much further than a few episodes of matlock, and owning "my cousin vinny" on DVD but it's just a convo i always think about when I see that notice.

I could be totally wrong though, it was just some people's opinions, and it was a good few years ago.

if someone sued you for malpractice, would you continue to treat them while the case was being decided?

seamus

tbh wrote: »

if someone sued you for malpractice, would you continue to treat them while the case was being decided?

He would have other reasons why he would be obliged to do so, but I'm sure it would be a little "rougher" than usual

For the record, legal advice was to not engage with people who threatened to sue or permit them to continue using the site.

tallaght01

tbh wrote: »

if someone sued you for malpractice, would you continue to treat them?

That's a bit different, as there are quite specific rules about this kind of thing.

We definitely continue to treat patients who's families have official complaints pending against us. I've done it several times.

I would definitely treat someone who was suing me, as I'd think it's unethical not to. But, like I said, it's very different. I think I would get struck off for not trrating someone in an emergency situation (I work in an emergency departtment) if they threatened to sue me. People have often made threats of violence and legal action against me while I'm doing things to them that aren't very nice, but I just plough on.

It's a very different scenario, with it's own set of rules. I'm not saying what's right or wrong, though. I'm just recounting a conversation.

Steve

I reckon if anyone did sue boards and get it shut down (likely as I doubt boards has millions waiting in the bank to pay in fines) then they'd have more to worry about than not being able to post any more.

Angry mob anyone?

Terry

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.

Standard reply: start your own website, allow complete free speech and get back to us when you get sued.

smashey

rosullivan wrote: »

Clearly you did not get any legal advice before you posted the announcement as it is more than likely unlawful

Newsflash;

The SMod who posted that announcement is a qualified barrister.

javaboy

tallaght01 wrote: »

That announcement always reminds me of a conversation i had with some lawyers in an office I worked in when i was a student. They were talkiong about some case where a premises (think it was a bar) banned a guy because he was suing them.
The judge in court was heavily critical of the premises in his ruling, as he said it provides a disincentive for people to avail of their judicial rights.

They reckoned judges take a very dim view of anyone who sanctions a person for taking legal action.

I wonder how the same judges feel about the double points and fines for motorists who decide to exercise their legal rights.

RoundyMooney

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Here's an idea - go set up your own website, invite loads of people in, let them say whatever they want about whomever they want.

Then see how long you and your website lasts.

Terry wrote: »

Standard reply: start your own website, allow complete free speech and get back to us when you get sued.

While I'm not doubting the validity of this point of view (I used to firmly believe it myself), I have to wonder how all the other sites out there (not the American ones, but the ones hosted here) get away with it. In reference to one specific event, far worse comments were, and are posted elsewhere. Genuinely curious about this.

The only place I remember having recent difficulties (and that was one letter, IIRC) was politics.ie.

Perhaps its simply that this site is a bigger target, and is run in a more cautious manner.

Either way, out of all the issues I could find with this site, that of banning someone who threatens the site, or a member thereof, is perfectly fair policy from the owner(s) in my view.

The qualifications of the poster who pinned the announcement are in this case not a factor anyway, because;

(1): They are acting on behalf of a site owner
(2): Boards.ie Ltd., has its own legal representative/advisor/highly paid letter writer.

Such an announcement is of far more benefit to the site than an exhortation to "vote for boards in the latest web awards nobody pays attention to anymore in order to increase our currency on the university lecture/advertisement hosting circuit". (My paraphrasing).

Dudess

rosullivan wrote: »

This is an issue of free speech. Effectively the administrators are saying that (a) they can ban you if they don't like what you say 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. Free speech doesn't work that way. That's why weird, disgusting and wrong (!) pornography is allowed in the U.S. - people may strongly disagree with your tastes, but you have a right to those tastes without fear of censorship (solong as no one is hurt by them). If the Boards.ie is going to masquerade as an open discussion board, then lose the censorship. Or else put a big honest notice on the front page calling it "CensoredBoards.ie".

Oh no, you've made a mistake. There isn't always free speech on Boards.ie and that's at the discretion of the admins.
Think of it like a bar where management reserves the right to refuse admission on pretty much whatever grounds it chooses.
Except Boards.ie is probably a good bit more lenient. People say it isn't but really, I see examples of leniency far more than I see examples of heavyhandedness.
And I can assure you, I'm not a sycophant. Boards is run by people, and people are not perfect.

hullaballoo

smashey wrote: »

Newsflash;

The SMod who posted that announcement is a qualified barrister.

FYP.

rosullivan

hullaballú wrote: »

FYP.

I probably should stay away from this, but hey...just a couple of points:

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.

2. Having read all the posts, I can see the logic behind wanting to ban someone who is threatening to sue you - I just don't agree with it personally.

3. 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.

I do agree however with people posting here - just because I personally believe in freedom of speech does not mean that Boards.ie has to support freedom of speech. I just wish they would.

Gordon

rosullivan wrote: »

I probably should stay away from this, but hey...just a couple of points:

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.

Now you are backtracking.

I do agree however with people posting here - just because I personally believe in freedom of speech does not mean that Boards.ie has to support freedom of speech. I just wish they would.

Don't blame boards, blame the legal system.

Kintarō Hattori

rosullivan wrote: »

I do agree however with people posting here - just because I personally believe in freedom of speech does not mean that Boards.ie has to support freedom of speech. I just wish they would.

Unfortunately that's not going to happen because some people are idiots.

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.