Removing the MCD stickies...

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.

tribulus

Thanks for the update.

Captain Darling

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

AckwelFoley

MC who? Wut?

never noticed the stickies.

:pac:

Nerin

Stick...Ies...?

*shrug*

My name is URL

Should keep it against the rules lol

Blowfish

Excellent, common sense prevails with that ruling

mike65

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

My name is URL

Judge - "Cop yerselfs on"

Captain Darling

mike65 wrote: »

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

MCD

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.

Random

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

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?

mike65

Opinion is not libel (allegedly).

My name is URL

mike65 wrote: »

Opinion is not libel (allegedly).

Neither is truth

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.

Boston

My name is URL wrote: »

Neither is truth

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

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

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?

Boston

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

Basq

Useful to know..

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

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....

Boston

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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?

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.

My name is URL

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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

johnnyskeleton

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

My name is URL

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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

Boston

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

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?

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.

Boston

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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?

johnnyskeleton

Boston wrote: »

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?

Where in my post did I suggest that I was referring to any simply negative comment. I think you were reading something into my words which was not there.

Equally I never said that it wasn't related to the MCD policy, my point was that even though the blanket ban on mentioning MCD has been removed, that should not prevent the general rules of the various fora from being enforced. Most fora don't allow defamatory comments, and this would apply irrespective of who is being talked about.

Boston

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where in my post did I suggest that I was referring to any simply negative comment. I think you were reading something into my words which was not there.

Take my post as more of a question asking in what sense you meant the word. I admitted I found your post confusing.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Equally I never said that it wasn't related to the MCD policy, my point was that even though the blanket ban on mentioning MCD has been removed, that should not prevent the general rules of the various fora from being enforced. Most fora don't allow defamatory comments, and this would apply irrespective of who is being talked about.

As per post 28, I agree with your sentiment. Can we drop this debate on the semantics of defamation now that we appear to be in agreement? I find it terribly trying.

My name is URL

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where in my post did I suggest that I was referring to any simply negative comment. I think you were reading something into my words which was not there.

Equally I never said that it wasn't related to the MCD policy, my point was that even though the blanket ban on mentioning MCD has been removed, that should not prevent the general rules of the various fora from being enforced. Most fora don't allow defamatory comments, and this would apply irrespective of who is being talked about.

So what's defamation in regards to a company like MCD, which is diverse to say the least?

If I decide to post a negative review or complaint about an MCD event will it be deemed as libelous?

Will it then be up to a mod to decide whether or not it is, or will be be MCD (which has already proven itself to be a litigious conglomerate) that dictates what is fair discussion?

This is a forum, where many people express individual views on things.

It seems more appropriate and fairer to members to set out clear definitions as to what the change in rules means for a poster on this board (or ban outright the discussion of MCD), rather than use a loose rule-set which favors positive discussion

Boston

Well from a user prospective, start by not posting anything which is false. You're not going to get ridged definition of what will be censored, it has to be a judgment call. The question is, it be a strict policy of will the user be given the benefit of the doubt?

Sully

I'd have assumed if you post a negative comment as an opinion, rather then a fact, its not libel. Libel seems to be for factual negative remarks.

The point is, while the blanket ban on MCD is lifted, you now treat them like any other group when posting about them. There is no difference, the only change is you can discuss MCD related events now.

turgon

Tbh if you want to play is safe just throw in "allegedly" and "apparently" every now and again.

Victor

My name is URL wrote: »

So what's defamation in regards to a company like MCD, which is diverse to say the least?

Saying that Pope Benedict was a nazi and he murdered millions of Jews would be defamation. Saying that in 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps is not defamation.

For a business saying that they sell shoddy goods (without good cause) would be defamation. Saying that you bought some shoes from a shop and they fell apart after a week of normal use, is not defamation (assuming they they fell apart after a week of normal use).

Stick to the facts.

IRLConor

Victor wrote: »

Stick to the facts.

And be wary of that too.

Truth is a defence, not an absolute out. If you say "XYZ ate my babies" then they can still take you to court and you then have to use evidence that they did eat your babies to avoid losing the case. That's not really a great option if you can't afford a High Court case.

Terry

Richard Dower wrote: »

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

That could very well be construed as libel as there is no premise behind it.
That is also my entire knowledge of these laws and is something I will act immediately on if it pops up in AH.

turgon wrote: »

Tbh if you want to play is safe just throw in "allegedly" and "apparently" every now and again.

Doesn't work.
I got pulled up on that a few years back.

Don't ask me to explain how it doesn't work because I don't fully understand it, but all I know is that it doesn't cover you.

johnnyskeleton

My name is URL wrote:

Will it then be up to a mod to decide whether or not it is, or will be be MCD (which has already proven itself to be a litigious conglomerate) that dictates what is fair discussion?

Yes, a mod. Bear in mind that if a mod, for whatever reason, decides that there should be no discussion of anything in a fora, then you, as a user, must either abide by that rule or not post there.

My name is URL wrote:

This is a forum, where many people express individual views on things.

It's their site, not ours, and we must abide by their rules.

My name is URL wrote:

It seems more appropriate and fairer to members to set out clear definitions as to what the change in rules means for a poster on this board (or ban outright the discussion of MCD), rather than use a loose rule-set which favors positive discussion

Well look, you either abide by the Irish laws as regards defamation or you don't. It's that simple.

Victor wrote: »

Saying that Pope Benedict was a nazi and he murdered millions of Jews would be defamation. Saying that in 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps is not defamation.

For a business saying that they sell shoddy goods (without good cause) would be defamation. Saying that you bought some shoes from a shop and they fell apart after a week of normal use, is not defamation (assuming they they fell apart after a week of normal use).

Stick to the facts.

Exactly, with the caveat that it is up to each individual moderator to say what is potentially defamatory and what is not. I think moderators should err on the side of removing anything that is potentially defamatory if in any doubt, as it is the only way to run a site like this.

Irish Halo

So MCD are still taking Boards to court and Boards is again giving them free advertising/promotion?

I understand that MCD dominate the promotions scene in Ireland and not being able to discuss events promoted by them makes things hard for users but they are in the process of trying to hurt the community with a court case that could potentially see Boards and the community disappear so why should we discuss their events?

Just me 2 cent.

turgon

Asfaik in common law systems, one case sets a precedents for the next. So in deciding verdicts judges will often go back to previous cases and see what happened there. You might be able to refer to previous cases in your defence I think.

So the case DeVore refered to might set a precedent for the MCD vs Boards one. I didnt go through it but theres probably something in there that could be used to defend Boards.

Maybe someone with legal know-how could clarify/dismiss that as necessary.

Darragh

Hi all

Thanks for all the questions and feedback.

My understanding of this whole MCD ban-lift is this:

Talk about the gigs. If a gig is bad, say why the gig was bad, but as was said earlier, stick to the facts.

Here are our legal and defamation guidelines. They apply to every person/company/event/organisation/charity/official body and so on that is discussed on Boards.ie

If anyone comes to us and says "This post is a problem and here's why", we have a set process of dealing with it. People can use the "Report a post" function or the Contact Page to bring it to the attention of the moderators, who will then escalate it to the admins if necessary.

We look at the post, judge whether it's (excuse my phrasing) "fair comment" or a post that is written to cause trouble, with clearly wrong or unprovable facts or something more serious, and what action needs to be taken.

If the subject of the post can say "Here's what's said on Boards.ie and here's the truth of the matter", then it's only fair that we do what we can to ensure the truth of the situation is known.

There are rules and guidelines on Boards.ie. We fully reserve the right to implement those rules as and how we see fit.

Re MCD, as Sully said below:

The point is, while the blanket ban on MCD is lifted, you now treat them like any other group when posting about them. There is no difference, the only change is you can discuss MCD related events now.

I hope that helps. If there are any questions we can answer (once we're back in the office) please let us know.

Thanks

Darragh

ShooterSF

Yeah! Take that McDonalds.

Slutmonkey57b

On the one hand I'm a little bit glad to see the lift on discussion of MCD events but equally I'm slightly in favour of leaving them out in the cold with no free promotion or word of mouth. I'm also wary about the massive increase in the number of posts about Britney Spears and other such musical garbage (garbage in my opinion.)

hullaballoo

Ok, the issue is slightly conflated and I want to clear something up.

On the one hand, there has been a decision in the High Court that is very very positive for the digital rights movement in Ireland. Particularly, it means that the discussion forum/chat room format is shielded (note: not immune) from anti-freedom of speech attacks.


On the other hand, as an almost entirely separate issue, boards.ie has re-considered its position in relation to the MCD issue. They are now simply being treated as any other company on this site would be treated. Their pedestal has been taken from under them. Basically, the publicity boards.ie was giving MCD as a result of the ban was far more than they would have gotten had this all happened quietly. Now, we can just go back to the default position in relation to all companies. That is discussion = good. Defamation = bad (at least, it will be removed where it's brought to our attention).



One other thing I want to clear up and I've been at the head of a one-man campaign on boards in relation to this issue: fair comment/truth/justification/opinion are defences in a court case against a claim of defamation. Successfully pleading a defence doesn't necessarily mean that the words complained of are not defamatory. They're separate issues for the jury to decide (yes, jury, not judge).

Boston

hullaballoo wrote: »

One other thing I want to clear up and I've been at the head of a one-man campaign on boards in relation to this issue: fair comment/truth/justification/opinion are defences in a court case against a claim of defamation. Successfully pleading a defence doesn't necessarily mean that the words complained of are not defamatory. They're separate issues for the jury to decide (yes, jury, not judge).

So negative comment can be defamation, even if its the truth?

hullaballoo

Boston wrote: »

So negative comment can be defamation, even if its the truth?

Very much so.

5starpool

As someone said:

The law is an ass.

Boston

5starpool wrote: »

As someone said:

The law is an ass.

I own the rights to that phrase, I'm suing you for trademark infringement.