When you say "you cannot be sued" perhaps you mean "you cannot be sued successfully". Anybody can sue anybody else at any time, but the question is who wins the case, the plaintiff/claimant or the defendant. The various circumstances you list provide a defendant with a good defence, not a guarantee against being sued. But if the plaintiff is a millionaire and you (the defendant) are poor and without legal aid, you may not be in a position to mount a defence realistically.
Ive had to edit a few things out of this. Please read the thread about posts with possible legal repercussions. Cheers. I dont want to get any more threatening emails from lawyers whos monthly salary is more than I make in a year
Mustn't come to a knee cap reaction,(oops,what is wrong with my spell check,should have read knee jerk reaction)So sorry.
Classic case of "stereo typing" here. Just because Mr Mallett looks a bit odd, you assume he's a ..........whatever. I remember Nog was all but "hero worshipped" on this forum until he was found out !..........just saying
Kiddie-fiddler is the term you're struggling for. And have you ever stopped to consider how stereotypes begin..? No, thought not.
There are only 2 stereotypical traits to peadophiles 1, they want to sexually abuse children, 2. They don't want to get caught. Hence the grooming of the protective factors, prior to the grooming of the victim. A basic insight is the finklehor model. 1. Motivation 2. Overcoming internal inhibitors 3. Overcoming external inhibitors 4. Overcoming resistance That's how they work
Ah my post got deleted! I think you've not made a good decision there @mattmccabebrown. I appreciate that you don't want any trouble for the site, but asking if someone has been arrested and then using his name is not accusing someone of any particular crime. There was nothing wrong with my post and I think deleting anything that mentions RH by name is wrong. Surely we should be entitled to some kind of defence when faced with lawyers, especially with Pete on board who can give you the right wording to respond with (without representing you, of course.) I will not be the victim of a bullying lawyer, nor will I be censored when that which is censored is not problematic. If this is the way the forum is going to be run then I don't want to be a part of it.
Don't let the door smack you on the arse on the way out... Or you could just chill out and understand that sometimes we can't always say what we want. Rob and Matt are running the risk of getting done by that bullying lawyer - not you. Perhaps you wouldn't be so keen if the shoe were on the other foot...
But asking if RH had been arrested is not a crime. If I had lawyers knocking on my door I'd do the same as Matt and Rob have done and that's warn members how they can behave. I wouldn't then start censoring posts which do not conform to that behaviour.
Even so, the decision isn't yours in this case. And if Matt wants to err on the side of caution, it's his choice. It's certainly nothing to throw your toys out of the pram over. He's deleted a couple of my posts before, but I didn't threaten to leave...
Tom so what would you suggest the answer is? You state that you would have done the same as Matt and rob, and knowing the potential consequences, if the site doesn't "conform to that behaviour". What choice did they have?
Whilst I sympathise with Tom's understandable outrage at being censored on very marginal grounds - his post being taken in isolation - I have to offer my support for the actions of the mods here. No, Tom did nothing wrong, in my eyes. I believe I saw the post in question and it raised no alarm bells with me, of itself. However, the mods have to administer the site as a whole, not simply on a post-by-post basis. The aforementioned celebrity's lawyers will not be taking the same circumspect view of posts concerning their client as I do and will probably attempt to use any relatively innocuous further posting on the subject as a lever to damage our site. The straw that breaks the camel's back, as it were, based upon the original posts that were, arguably and allegedly, libellous. The mods are protecting the right of this site to exist here, they aren't picking on one member's posting. If we are all a bit more cautious about how we express ourselves with respect to cases that are being or will be tried in court, we can probably continue to say almost anything we like here (just not how we like
I think Matt and Rob are absolutely right to protect their work from legal action. To achieve this I think they could, as they have done, explain to members what is and is not acceptable. I'm cool with that. "Now we all have opinions, but as the lawyer who emailed me rightly states, everybody is entitled to a fair trail and they fear that any public discussion on this matter within the forum, may adversely effect this." Warning about threads that may have a legal repercussions | Ducati Forum This quote is taken from Rob's explanation of what is and is not acceptable and I think it's pretty clear. I don't think that asking if RH has been arrested again is a statement that could affect his right to a fair trial. Especially when taken in context with the rest of the thread and more specifically the post immediately after mine, which said no, he hadn't been arrested again - in a thread specifically asking if we can talk about him. So it's ok to talk about him but it's not ok to ask if he has been arrested again? I think Pete can say more than I can on this subject, especially as I have no legal education at all. I have been reading his description of what is illegal in what you can say. This is what Pete1950 said on page one of this thread: "Of course there isn't a ban on saying that a person has been arrested, if they have been and it is public knowledge. Just like there isn't a ban on saying somebody has been charged, or is on trial, if that is so. There is no ban on saying that the police or prosecutors are making certain allegations against a person, if they are. At risk of repeating the bleedin' obvious, what is banned is presuming the guilt of someone who is entitled to the presumption of innocence." Now, at no time in this thread have I made an accusation of something that has or has not occurred. I have asked if something has happened and received a negative response. Like I said, and I shall continue to say: I'm happy to moderate what I say to protect the site from legal action. Perhaps Matt and Rob can define where the line is and then apply that line to the moderation effort. I feel like I haven't crossed the line here. I have spent the last 7 years in and out of war zones indirectly defending the freedom we have in this country and I don't intend to be told what I can and can't say when what I am saying isn't illegal. This site isn't my baby, I don't pay my own money to participate or run the site. If Rob and Matt want things to continue this way then I have the freedom to stop using it, but I'm hoping that they might like to hear my opinion before I make that decision and they can give me some feedback on how they want things to go from here for the site. I can then choose whether or not I personally want to participate.
Okay. Everybody has the right to use this place and indeed, both myself and Rob welcome any and everybody to join and to participate. We don't care if you ride Ducatis or not. Most do, which is why we're all here. There isn't a ban on stating facts, ie if somebody has been arrested or not. Those who know me and know the way I work, will attest to the fact that I really don't like editing or deleting posts, but sadly sometimes I do have to err on the side of caution. If anybody has a problem with what I do, then I am truly sorry for that, but my job is to ensure that the forum is an enjoyable place and to protect it if and when needed. Thankfully, this is extremely rare. The problem I have with this thread is pretty simple. You have the name of an individual who has been arrested and then several posts later somebody else is taking about sexual perverts. My fear is that it would be pretty easy for a talented lawyer to threaten us on those grounds. Figgys mention of a former ITV childrens entertainer didn't sit well with me either, but as he hasn't been arrested (to my knowledge) so I think we're okay. The 'lawyers' for this individual know that we, i.e the Ducati Forum, exist and are therefore more likely come back and search for certain words and phrases and having been warned / threatened once already and having already made our position very clear, I have to step in. I wouldn't be doing my job properly if I didn't. If somebody has been convicted, for anything, then there are no restrictions. You guys can have a field day but until then a little bit of restraint isn't going to kill you. If I have edited anybody's posts, or even their threads, it isn't personal and I'm sorry that I've stepped in, I really am. I'm not a fan of censorship, never have been, but when it comes down to it, this is just a digital forum, nothing more, nothing less, but we are still a community and that is something that I am trying to maintain. If anybody want to PM me, I'm always around Matt
Matt, The mention of another TV entertainer implying that he may be guilty of a crime he has yet to be arrested for is surely much more potentially damaging for the site than asking if R has been arrested? You're saying that it's cool to say things which ARE potentially illegal because, as of right now, no lawyer has told you it's not ok but it's not ok to mention someone's name in a manner which is not illegal despite the entire thread being about that person. It would be just as easy for that same smart lawyer to link the thread to R and the comments that came after. If that was the case then the whole thread is no good and should go rather than simply saying Voldemort's name in a non-accusative question.
Again, you make excellent points. To which I've gone back and removed said persons name too. Previous versions of this forum had a very strict no politics no religion policy too, but that was just pointless. All I'm trying to do, is keep the peace. Nothing more, nothing less. I hope that everybody understands that mmb
It's a tough life being a moderator, eh Matt? It's a bank holiday morning and here I am giving you some grief
