north Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Hey, the BBC never even mentioned two-shags and his dalliances! I actually lost what little faith I had remaining in the BBC as an independent source of balanced news after that episode. I couldn't understand why there was nothing about it on the BBC website, but they had links to all the UK newspapers instead. If a publicly funded news agency can't report independently on issues concerning elected government figures, then there is something seriously wrong with the system. The one defence the public has in a free society is the ability to question and challenge anything. If you can't report freely about the salubrious activities of elected individuals, tasked with running the country, then what the hell else is going on they won't/can't report? Not that any of this refers to the topic in discussion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 J.A.Stewart wrote Besides, in the end, the mods can remove ANYTHING and not give a reason facism!! *cough cough* Ah yes this is true.....but we all have the freedom to go set up our own discussion board. It is also true that the owners/moderators of many Yahoo groups have to check each message before allowing it to pass on to the group. And that is not just to avoid spam getting through. As far as Shetlink goes it would be possible for the moderators to be sued for publishing that was considered libel (or whatever) so dont be too hard on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristopherWilliamThomson Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 hbgb, your Gary Marshall argument is voided by the fact that he was convicted of various offences previous to and during his time as Osla's owner. Before posting a negative comment, you need to reflect upon it to see if your motives are even partly objective. If not, all it takes is a little bit of re-phrasing to make a defamatory comment a reasonable one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 J.A.Stewart wrote Besides, in the end, the mods can remove ANYTHING and not give a reason facism!! *cough cough* Ah yes this is true.....but we all have the freedom to go set up our own discussion board. It is also true that the owners/moderators of many Yahoo groups have to check each message before allowing it to pass on to the group. And that is not just to avoid spam getting through. As far as Shetlink goes it would be possible for the moderators to be sued for publishing that was considered libel (or whatever) so dont be too hard on them. you sure? i thought you would sue the person making the statment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 J.A.Stewart wrote Besides, in the end, the mods can remove ANYTHING and not give a reason facism!! *cough cough* Ah yes this is true.....but we all have the freedom to go set up our own discussion board. It is also true that the owners/moderators of many Yahoo groups have to check each message before allowing it to pass on to the group. And that is not just to avoid spam getting through. As far as Shetlink goes it would be possible for the moderators to be sued for publishing that was considered libel (or whatever) so dont be too hard on them. you sure? i thought you would sue the person making the statment? Fine in theory, but in an internet situation especially, almost impossible to "prove" who it was who actually posted the offending data. I'm no lawyer (thankfully!!), but I think if a newspaper published sueable statements, it would be the paper, as publisher, who'd be the main focus of any legal action, rather than an individual author. I may be very wrong in this, but it has always seemed me that the vehicle which facilitates the ability for an otherwise private comment or opinion to become a public one, has a legal obgligation upon itself to ensure the facilities it provides are not abused or used in an illegal manner. They may not be responsible for the content of an opinion or comment, but they are responsible for it being a public one, where certain things that are perfectly legal to voice in a private situation, suddenly become illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 This links to an article called Basic UK libel for idiots. No offence intended http://www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turrifield Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 I don't know what ( ** mod edit **) has been up to but I think that there is a vast differance between giving an opinion of someone's character and actually accusing them of some serious wrong doing. I said in the Chris Moyles thread that he's a twatt or something similar but that is not libelous because I'm not accusing him of doing anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 This links to an article called Basic UK libel for idiots. No offence intended http://www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. So someone on here comes on and says someone else had done 'this or that' and it is untrue. They can be sued for lible and shetlink would get sued too? That seems a bit hard on shetlink. As it's printed and has been passed on in public it is the evedence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFly Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 They can be sued for lible and shetlink would get sued too? It's not a certainty that the site owners would be sued on every occasion. That would depend very much on the circumstances of the individual case. However, it's a definite possibility. A possibility that we're not willing to risk Sam. Apart from anything else, we couldn't afford it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeriebryan Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 The legal situation regarding posting 'libelous' content on forums changes on a per case basis To summarise (my understanding of current legislation).... If the 'libelous statement' is aimed at an anonymous or assumed identity, their is no case. Libelous statements' must be made against a 'real' individual (whether by name or very strong insinuation) in a public arena Forum 'owners' can only be held responsible if they have consciously allowed the 'libelous statement' to remain in public view, assuming the forum 'owner' is aware of the statement and has had ample opportunity to remove the statement but has chosen not to do so. This is a particularly subjective area Even if both of these factors are provable, it is very unlikely that a case could be brought unless there is also proof that the 'victim' has suffered financial loss, significant damage to their reputation or some other serious tangible negative factor as a result As I say, the above isn't gospel, but is correct to the best of my current knowledge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 SUCH FILTH:http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/news_06_2007/Violent%20struggle%20in%20Lerwick%20court.htmI was shocked, offended, outraged and disgusted to see the full expletive court report of young Mr potty mouth Mills printed in full on the shetland news sight. Thank god we have our own gaurdian grot busting moderator team to prevent our minds being warped by such ill thought remarks I weep for the future of news reporting in Shetland if this is the way things are going, as for Mr Mills I hope the {by the way, do you realise I tried to swear here?} is ashamed of himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 How about if every one was to say allegedly after every thing the type. Just like on Have I Got News For You, seems to work for them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrutineer Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 the question of moderation or whatever you call it is an ongoing problem on every forum i've been on - I ran a site last year with the same troubles -nobody likes having their posts deleted but ultimately, comments made in here can be read by anyone out of interest i did a google search for ian selbie+shetland and No 1 in the list was shetlink with this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 Ally wrote I think there's a difference between making disparaging and slanderous remarks about individuals in the community, (where it may have an effect on their daily lives) and taking the piss out of public figures (politicians, actors etc). I have not the faintest idea what you are all talking about BUT I think it could be argued that Mr. Selbie through his prolific letter writing to the Times has become a "public figure" and as such is open to having things said about him and although Slander is an offence "taking the piss" might well be reasonable. Having read some of Mr. Selbies letters in the paper. He ridiculous him self quite well without our help. It is also very easy to post something in the heat of the moment. And when you look back at some of the things you have posted and then think how close to libelous content was that. Not every one is a backroom lawyer. And if it is subject to police action, any thing posted could about the subject could perjure the case. Never mind that a court might shut down the shetlink forum for months while lawyers argued about it there is no doubt that there has to be some form of moderation. And I think the ones here do a good job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrutineer Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 [vthere is no doubt that there has to be some form of moderation. And I think the ones here do a good job totally agree moderation is very hard to do and certainly this is one of the more reasonable sites i've been on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.