Sports threads on Afterhours: why the double standards?

Dionysus

Earlier this month I set up a thread on Dublin's historic hurling final victory over Kilkenny. It was closed with a sarky thanks-whoring comment from a moderator in its first page.

At present on the first page of the Forum there is a rugby-related thread in Afterhours and a thread, which is currently on its twelfth page, about a British soccer player. When criticised by posters before for leaving soccer threads open (and not moving them to either the Soccer or England or Entertainment fora), the response has been that they are about soccer-related issues like the private lives of players - by this logic, my GAA thread was about what the Dublin victory will mean to communities across Dublin, to confidence here, to pride, and so on.

Why are the Afterhours mods, who in fairness usually demonstrate a bit of cothrom na féinne and tolerance about threads, exhibiting a double standard when it comes to GAA-related threads?

Nodin

Well they've just deleted the second thread, and it was referring to the super injunction rather than the sporting element.

AlmightyCushion

If someone started a thread about how great it was for man united fans that they won the premiership then the thread would be locked and they'd be told to go to the soccer forum. The giggsy thread isn't about sport, it just so happens to be about a person who plays sport as their profession. Your GAA thread and this giggs thread are two completely different topics.

Micky Dolenz

After Hours doesn't care for sports. You also posted about regional sport where it is likely that only a small percentage of people will be interested.

There is a large and active GAA forum where all users want to talk about GAA. Is this not the most logical place to start a thread about
a Hurling match?

There is no comparison between that and the injunction story.

delta_bravo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If someone started a thread about how great it was for man united fans that they won the premiership then the thread would be locked and they'd be told to go to the soccer forum. The giggsy thread isn't about sport, it just so happens to be about a person who plays sport as their profession. Your GAA thread and this giggs thread are two completely different topics.

I just had a glance at the front page of AH there and the majority of the threads could be moved into more appropriate forums. Either way, it was a very poor way to close a thread with such a blunt comment.

AlmightyCushion

delta_bravo wrote: »

I just had a glance at the front page of AH there and the majority of the threads could be moved into more appropriate forums. Either way, it was a very poor way to close a thread with such a blunt comment.

If we moved every thread that could be in a more appropriate forum into the more appropriate forum, there would be no after hours. If we let any and every thread in after hours there would be no other forums. We try to reach a happy medium between the two.

My name is URL

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

There is no comparison between that and the injunction story.

Why did you close my thread on the same story then? You even cited 'football' in your post..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275021

There's pretty much no consistency when it comes to closing threads. It seems to be done increasingly on a whim

Micky Dolenz

My name is URL wrote: »

Why did you close my thread on the same story then? You even cited 'football' in your post..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275021

There's pretty much no consistency when it comes to closing threads. It seems to be done increasingly on a whim

Because it was a story about someone sueing an Internet website, thought that was kinda obvious. We are awaiting the legal heads to get back to us on if it's ok to be discussed.

User Friendly

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Because it was a story about someone sueing an Internet website, thought that was kinda obvious. We are awaiting the legal heads to get back to us on if it's ok to be discussed.

your legal heads wont know is the answer this is all new ground for lible,etc etc

My name is URL

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Because it was a story about someone sueing an Internet website, thought that was kinda obvious. We are awaiting the legal heads to get back to us on if it's ok to be discussed.

Fair enough if that was the reason for closing it, but a bit of clarity wouldn't go astray. You mentioned 'football' in your closing post so there was no reason for me to assume that that wasn't the reason for closing it.

Why wouldn't be ok to discuss though? I never mentioned the guy's name, nor the circumstances covered by the injunction. The thread was supposed to be a discussion on super-injunctions in general, and the effect they have on social media.

If people mention the guy's name, when they know full well that they shouldn't then it's those posts which should be actioned and not the thread as a whole, imo.

Micky Dolenz

My name is URL wrote: »

Fair enough if that was the reason for closing it, but a bit of clarity wouldn't go astray. You mentioned 'football' in your closing post so there was no reason for me to assume that that wasn't the reason for closing it.

Why wouldn't be ok to discuss though? I never mentioned the guy's name, nor the circumstances covered by the injunction. The thread was supposed to be a discussion on super-injunctions in general, and the effect they have on social media.

If people mention the guy's name, when they know full well that they shouldn't then it's those posts which should be actioned and not the thread as a whole, imo.

Because we don't know ourselves.

Since this is a privately owned website, we'd rather be sure it's ok and not take a chance.

Darragh

Just to back the mods up on this, we have "officially" asked them to be careful with these threads. Truth is that I don't know the legal grounds/case here - I know said footballer is suing twitter - a multi billion dollar website - over remarks made by "anonymous" users on its website, and it is hosted in the US - what's not to say said footballer can't sue a small Irish website for the same thing?

I really really want to say "Discuss away" but it would only be "Discuss away if you're willing to accept that you might be sued for what you say, we might be sued for your identity and really we have no idea if or when that might happen. So be careful."

Not exactly ideal, but without talking to our legal advisors properly, that's all I can offer you.

Nodin

Well a scottish newspaper has just stuck his mug on the front of their Sunday edition (full colour, full page), as they're a seperate legislation.....

Darragh

Aye, I know. A colleague linked to it on twitter and I've seen that on Broadsheet.ie as well.

I still hesitate to say yes, but hate saying no.

EDIT: I've emailed Boards.ie management to find out their stance

tbh

He's not suing twitter, as I understand it, just trying to find out who the users are. Twitter, again as I understand it, is the conduit and not the publisher - once again seeming to suggest that people should be careful what they post as ultimately it will be up to them to defend their remarks if required

Biggins

To quote Forbes (who also name the man and show his picture):

Twitter hasn’t commented on the lawsuit, but as an American company, it’s probably protected from the legal action. Here in the U.S., we have a law (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) that protects sites from liability from things said by their users.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/05/20/he-who-cannot-be-named-in-the-uk-sues-twitter-over-a-user-naming-him/

Let be honest, its all over the internet now.
30,000 Tweets alone in the last 24 hours.

BBC reporters, British comedians now in public making jokes, etc. Its just everywhere.
Even BBC Radio 4 gave the game away (The Times) on live radio.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/5476/capturegq.jpg

Super-Rush

The rugby thread wasn't closed for so long because none of the mods were online. As soon as i saw it i closed it.

Darragh

Darragh wrote: »

Just to back the mods up on this, we have "officially" asked them to be careful with these threads. Truth is that I don't know the legal grounds/case here - I know said footballer is suing twitter - a multi billion dollar website - over remarks made by "anonymous" users on its website, and it is hosted in the US - what's not to say said footballer can't sue a small Irish website for the same thing?

I really really want to say "Discuss away" but it would only be "Discuss away if you're willing to accept that you might be sued for what you say, we might be sued for your identity and really we have no idea if or when that might happen. So be careful."

Not exactly ideal, but without talking to our legal advisors properly, that's all I can offer you.

As the "superinjunction" was placed by a British judge on the British media, I'm of the opinion that as this messageboard is hosted outside the Juristiction of the British courts, the injunction doesn't apply.

Would that be correct.

Darragh

Deleted User wrote: »

As the "superinjunction" was placed by a British judge on the British media, I'm of the opinion that as this messageboard is hosted outside the Juristiction of the British courts, the injunction doesn't apply.

Would that be correct.

I don't know. We're seeking legal advice on it. You're possibly correct.

Biggins

I could be wrong but anyone can be sued if the information is false, true?
..But if it is is indeed true - and so far no British court has served any outlets beyond the borders of Britain with direct injunctions, then I assume it will be a serious major uphill legal battle to chase the whole world inc USA, Ireland, etc besides the internet that have supposedly only stated true facts.

Add to that, are we now supposed to fear every foreign judge all around the world every time they now make a ruling that applies to only their own country - be it England, Argentina or Timbucktu?
Its just a thought/comment (and open to be wrong).

Remember the farce that was the book "Spycatcher" ? (just one example)
They banned the writer from speaking out through print in England but still the book came out and in all honesty, there was little they could do or much to the writer.

Wright wrote Spycatcher upon retiring from MI5 and while residing in Tasmania. He first attempted publication in 1985. The British government immediately acted to ban Spycatcher in the UK. Since the ruling was obtained in an English court, however, the book continued to be available legally in Scotland, as well as overseas. It also attempted halting the book's Australian publication, but lost that action in 1987; it appealed but again lost in June 1988.

English newspapers attempting proper reportage of Spycatcher's principal allegations were served gag orders; on persisting, they were tried for contempt of court, although the charges were eventually dropped. Throughout all this, the book continued to be sold in Scotland; moreover, Scottish newspapers were not subject to any English gag order, and continued to report on the affair

I know that case is different in other aspects but the jurisdiction of the English courts once again was pointed out to them that they no longer get to tell the world how they can or can't behave in a heck of a lot of cases.
(I bought a copy of the book myself)

Micky Dolenz

Biggins wrote: »

I could be wrong but anyone can be sued if the information is false, true?
..But if it is is indeed true - and so far no British court has served any outlets beyond the borders of Britain with direct injunctions, then I assume it will be a serious major uphill legal battle to chase the whole world inc USA, Ireland, etc besides the internet that have supposedly only stated true facts.

Add to that, are we now supposed to fear every foreign judge all around the world every time they now make a ruling that applies to only their own country - be it England, Argentina or Timbucktu?
Its just a thought/comment (and open to be wrong).

Remember the farce that was the book "Spycatcher" ? (just one example)
They banned the writer from speaking out through print in England but still the book came out and in all honesty, there was little they could do or much to the writer.


I know that case is different in other aspects but the jurisdiction of the English courts once again was pointed out to them that they no longer get to tell the world how they can or can't behave in a heck of a lot of cases.
(I bought a copy of the book myself)

Would you bet your house on it?

Biggins

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Would you bet your house on it?

Good question.
If I was single personally (or nothing to lose - and by the way, the English government CANNOT take my house, trust me on that one) and sought legal advice such as Wright did, yes.

Orion

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

After Hours doesn't care for sports. You also posted about regional sport where it is likely that only a small percentage of people will be interested.

There is a large and active GAA forum where all users want to talk about GAA. Is this not the most logical place to start a thread about
a Hurling match?

There is no comparison between that and the injunction story.

Plus you were thanks-whoring right?

Orion

Dionysus wrote: »

It was closed with a sarky thanks-whoring comment from a moderator

Sarky does not mod AH

Biggins

Editorial in the English Times Tomorrow.
Source: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3028434.ece
(Note the bottom italic bit)

A Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, has published a clearly identifiable photograph of a Premier League footballer with his eyes blacked out, claiming him to be at the centre of a high-profile court attempt to silence allegations about his private life. Given that to do so could lead to his identity becoming known, some lawyers would argue that this newspaper could be in contempt of court for having identified that newspaper. You may need to read that sentence twice.

It gets worse. A high-profile journalist on a leading British newspaper has made a comment on Twitter about a Premier League footballer for which he, or she, now risks being prosecuted for contempt of court. For legal reasons, The Times is not at liberty to name the footballer, or the journalist, or the newspaper for which he, or she, works. This would remain true even if The Times was that newspaper, which may, or may not, be the case.

All of this is absurd, and doubly so because you, the reader, very possibly already know all about it, including the bits that we are not at liberty to print. If you do not, and are sitting at a computer, you could probably find full details in a matter of moments. Although we may not tell you how.

The ongoing attempts of high-profile individuals to use injunctions, super or otherwise, to keep their misdeeds out of the papers has moved from sinister, to farcical, to something closer to madness. Social media, the same technology which kept protesters on Middle Eastern streets one step ahead of the law during the Arab Spring, is now the predominant arena in which the practice is being exposed as hollow. Schillings, the London media law firm which represents many celebrities and footballers, is now attempting a rear-guard action, targeting individuals, such as the journalist mentioned above, who have named those who, like Lord Voldemort, must not be.

This is a profoundly cynical move. Certainly, it will not help those whose identities are supposed to be shielded by injunctions. With every step their lawyers take — from injunction to superinjunction to writ to threat — mentions online of those involved soar. With various horses so evidently bolted, the logic for pursuing individual tweeters seems dubious. One has to question whether any celebrity who pays a lawyer a huge fee to keep his private life private and sees it smeared across the web as a direct result is really getting his money’s worth.

Cyberspace is a tricky place to bully. Organisations of many sorts have struggled to control the flow of information online, all with at best very limited success. Legal muscle has not yet eradicated the illegal spread of Hollywood films, Top 40 music, the home sex tapes of stars or the classified documents of US intelligence. It is deluded at best to pretend it can more easily suppress the few small words which make up a fact.

Websites should of course obey the law, and the people who use them should, too. Yet the law over injunctions is so frequently and easily flouted because it is a bad law. It is an affront that rich and powerful people should seek to pay to tell the public what they can and cannot read, but it is also, increasingly obviously, a myth that such suppression is even possible. Publishing in Scotland, the Sunday Herald is theoretically free from the constraints of injunctions, as are publishers from the United States, or elsewhere. Ordinary users of Twitter, likewise, cannot be expected to be bound by the terms of an injunction they have never seen. Why should representatives of traditional media be at such disadvantage, even when using the same technology?

Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, declared last week that the internet was “making an ass of the law”. In fact, the law needs no such help. Contempt of court is a crime, but contempt for Britain’s injunction habit is close to universal.

Beasty

With every step their lawyers take — from injunction to superinjunction to writ to threat — mentions online of those involved soar. With various horses so evidently bolted, the logic for pursuing individual tweeters seems dubious. One has to question whether any celebrity who pays a lawyer a huge fee to keep his private life private and sees it smeared across the web as a direct result is really getting his money’s worth.

So it's all a sinister plot to make said footballer (whoever he may be;)) the most famous person on the planet ....:D

Biggins

Beasty wrote: »

So it's all a sinister plot to make said footballer (whoever he may be;)) the most famous person on the planet ....:D

Becks will be jealous. :pac:

Beasty

Biggins wrote: »

Becks will be jealous. :pac:

Posh maybe ...

Anyway, so long as whoever he is "scores" on Saturday, I don't care

stovelid

The GAA threads might get the 'Ra heads all excited in these fraught times.

The soccer ones are probably OK as all the 'Ra heads appear to adore English multinational soccer corporations anyway.

Nodin

stovelid wrote: »

The GAA threads might get the 'Ra heads all excited in these fraught times.

The soccer ones are probably OK as all the 'Ra heads appear to adore English multinational soccer corporations anyway.

If you've nothing to offer, its usually best to keep fingers from keys.

There is now a whole new section about this incident on his wikipedia page.
Proves yet again, if you don't do it, you won't get caught, or be very careful

Nodin

Biggins wrote: »

I could be wrong but anyone can be sued if the information is false, true?
..But if it is is indeed true - and so far no British court has served any outlets beyond the borders of Britain with direct injunctions, then I assume it will be a serious major uphill legal battle to chase the whole world inc USA, Ireland, etc besides the internet that have supposedly only stated true facts...........

....the injunction is to prevent comment/reporting/mentioning. That A shagged B is not in dispute at all, all.

stovelid

Nodin wrote: »

If you've nothing to offer, its usually best to keep fingers from keys.

A bit of advice that many of us would be better off paying heed to.

Biggins

Nodin wrote: »

....the injunction is to prevent comment/reporting/mentioning. That A shagged B is not in dispute at all, all.

Well that injunction that is applicable to the British press, worked well didn't it?
I must remember, we are not England or Wales where the injunction has legal basis!
No judge in England does get to censorship the world.

O' and the Mumbi Mirror and the Times of India has announced the whole lot too - EVERYTHING including the other footballer and his injunction!
Thats over 7 Million people now in India alone that has been informed.
See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389841/Super-injunction-footballer-pictured-Scottish-paper-30k-unmask-Twitter.html

Add to that, British MP John Hemmings stood up a little while ago in British parliament and announced Ryan Giggs name as to be connected to the injunction, to the world, in his state building!

It seems they are not afraid to say what many, many millions elsewhere knows also - even in India!
Good luck to Giggs suing him and India also for saying the truth!

Also our footballer is trying to sue Twitter only for the names of those that first exposed him.
Not suing those that after that repeats the truth it appears.
He can't seriously sue the rest of the world now - if he does try he will be a bigger joke now than what he is - if thats possible!

The English Mail has now announced it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389841/Ryan-Giggs-named-Commons-footballer-injunction-preventing-details-affair-Imogen-Thomas.html

Nodin

Aye, the cats out of the handbag now. And he's still spending money on it.