Incessant Chatter...

Barty · Post by **Barty** » 6 Mar 2009 07:35

All you need to do, Admin, I would have thought, is display a prominent disclaimer to anyone who registers on the site along the lines of "The views of the members of STF are not necessarily those of the site administrator, and individual members are responsible for the contents of their posts....." - saves you having to make the decision about what could be considered libellous, defamatory, etc. and passes that responsibility onto the poster.

Nickerbockers · Post by **Nickerbockers** » 6 Mar 2009 10:29

Wow, it is getting extremely involved and heavy here - it's amazing what arguments break out sometimes when you look at the title of the original post!

Post by **admin** » 6 Mar 2009 10:44

Barty - pretty obvious I could not agree with all the views expressed here. However I do PUBLISH them. So there is a joint responsibility by the author and me. As it is not pre-moderated the law gives me some protection in that removing defamatory material in a reasonable time is a defence.

Usually I first check with the offended party. If it becomes known that they suppressed unflattering material it can rebound. Hence I do advise they come up with a robust response or let others correct the accusation. Most good people do just this. The problem is the law protects the bad people since if they insist I must remove (or see them in court).

Having said that - then the number of instances over the last 5 years can be counted on two hands so its not a major problem in this forum. It is a real problem for more edgy forums.

So chatter on ... incessantly!

Admin

catscratch · Post by **catscratch** » 6 Mar 2009 13:43

And for those below the age of 35 the phrase

"I think we should be told",

Is a regular Private Eye phrase, sort of a smile icon from before computer days.
I believe Bensonsby is a Private Eye reader so he should have cottoned on.
you want Debate?

Henry VI part 2 Jack cades speech

paultreacy · Post by **paultreacy** » 6 Mar 2009 20:15

Seems I have a lot of catching up to do. This one has run and run.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 6 Mar 2009 22:02

admin wrote:Barty - pretty obvious I could not agree with all the views expressed here. However I do PUBLISH them. So there is a joint responsibility by the author and me. As it is not pre-moderated the law gives me some protection in that removing defamatory material in a reasonable time is a defence.

Usually I first check with the offended party. If it becomes known that they suppressed unflattering material it can rebound. Hence I do advise they come up with a robust response or let others correct the accusation. Most good people do just this. The problem is the law protects the bad people since if they insist I must remove (or see them in court).

Having said that - then the number of instances over the last 5 years can be counted on two hands so its not a major problem in this forum. It is a real problem for more edgy forums.

So chatter on ... incessantly!

Admin

ipso facto some of the civil law in this country is grotesquly anachronistic...

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 6 Mar 2009 22:04

catscratch wrote:And for those below the age of 35 the phrase

"I think we should be told",

Is a regular Private Eye phrase, sort of a smile icon from before computer days.
I believe Bensonsby is a Private Eye reader so he should have cottoned on.
you want Debate?

Henry VI part 2 Jack cades speech

shurely shome mishtake?

Barty · Post by **Barty** » 7 Mar 2009 07:06

catscratch · Post by **catscratch** » 7 Mar 2009 09:18

I thought you'd get the allusion Bensonby

hung by my own petard eh?
Rule one....... get your facts right

it was of course Dick the Butcher.

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004

Incessant Chatter...