Defamatory And Offensive Posts

[WTF 3,930]

not many faces to add to the 'pick on' list up at HQ then??

[spook 1,340]

 

 

Even when there is absolute proof of wrongdoing the way to deal with that is not to use a discussion form, especially so when one is just a forum member.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but what if one is a really really important forum member ?

 

Then all the more reason not to do so.

[spook 1,340]

But I don't quite agree with you. If someone is absolutely sure of the wrongdoing of someone in a position of trust then for THEM it matters not when it comes to consideration of accompanying it with evidence when it comes to informing others. It is still only a matter of concern for the person to whom the claim has been made.

 

But to drag other people into the fray is wrong, especially when those other people stand a chance of loss because of being dragged in and especially when they are innocent bystanders who candidly couldn’t care much less about a thing or who are satisfied that due process has been followed and are content with that due process.

 

Also when they believe that in an imperfect world some degree of imperfection is inevitable but it is at an acceptable level when the overall service being provided is good,

 

IF there is proof of wrongdoing by a person who is undertaking a public role or a position of trust then should have LESS not more consideration when it comes to the proliferation of such information. By doing wrong in a public role they have already subverted the very system they are part of and it would be proper to expose them by whatever means.

 

There are ways and means and due process.

 

If those ways and means and due process are inadequate or have been abused by “the other side” then for an individual to do what he wants and face the potential consequences of his actions is one thing. To drag others in who have no way to legally disassociate themselves from such actions is WRONG. A forum is after all not a “wall newspaper”.

 

Let me put it simply.

 

If someone feels they’ve had a bad deal then let them put their cock on the block, not mine along side it.

[- Paul - 3]

Why was the refutation by the individual at whom the allegation was directed subsequently removed?

[spook 1,340]

Why was the refutation by the individual at whom the allegation was directed subsequently removed?

 

 

Immaterial. The damage has been done. This should go to law if for no other reason than the principle of establishing caesar's wife's status and getting it restored for the injured party.

[- Paul - 3]

Immaterial in your opinion.

Leaving it up might and I say might, have ameliorated the situation to some small degree.

 

However I agree the damage has been done.

[John Wright 4,667]

The report button exists for reporting. MF is not in the business of deciding who is right and or wrong. The offending and reporting post were both set invisible rather than have legal matters played out in public gaze. That meets the obligation of MF under s10 Electronic Communications Act 2000 and s8 Law Reform Act 1997 to protect itself.

 

The reporting post could in theory be a problem itself by in terms or directly accusing the original poster of lying. I am not suggesting it was in this case.

 

MF is not a newspapaer and the practice and etiquette of running a forum or bulletin board, and the responsibilities may well be different

 

What concerns me personlly is that the DCC has admitted to lurking or monitoring, keeping an eye on what is posted. No one, not on here or IOM Newspapers has seen fit to comment. I think that is worthy of comment

 

I also think it is worthy of comment that IOM Newspapers did not seek the views of MF before having a dig. Thye are a commercial concern and the legal rule about responsibility by pre moderation or editing is different for them than for MF

[spook 1,340]

Why?

 

Is it not right and proper that the police and security services should keep tabs on such places as this?

 

Did you ever think anything other than that would be the case?

[La_Dolce_Vita 744]

If those ways and means and due process are inadequate or have been abused by “the other side” then for an individual to do what he wants and face the potential consequences of his actions is one thing. To drag others in who have no way to legally disassociate themselves from such actions is WRONG. A forum is after all not a “wall newspaper”.

 

Let me put it simply.

 

If someone feels they’ve had a bad deal then let them put their cock on the block, not mine along side it.

If you're talking about a forums where it might have some potential for being closed for keeping such claims online then I would agree. I don't have much knowledge of the law. But common sense to me would seem to dictate that the person making a claim is at fault if they commit libel, not the place where it was made, but those who provide such a place need also to remove it.

[La_Dolce_Vita 744]

Why?

 

Is it not right and proper that the police and security services should keep tabs on such places as this?

 

Did you ever think anything other than that would be the case?

Why do you think it is right and proper?

 

I must be naive, I presume in this case that it demonstrates nothing other than the site being used in the person's spare time. Not being monitored as part of some police task, however.

[Evil Goblin 105]

Why?

 

Is it not right and proper that the police and security services should keep tabs on such places as this?

 

Did you ever think anything other than that would be the case?

I take it then, Spook, that you would agree that PC Plod should monitor all communications between people, just in case anything seditious appears? If so, then combined with your delusional religious beliefs, you truly are a nutter.

[La_Dolce_Vita 744]

I can understand why such perspectives (as Spook's) are formed. I mean, the current trend of the UK government (and others to a lesser extend) in the West is for the State to increasingly stick it nose into the affairs of the public on the very poor excuse of fighting terrorism and crime.

Quite unfortunate that unless the State's instrusive is pushed back and resisted future generations will grow up to think that monitoring of communications, CCTV everywhere, terrorism laws, etc are the norm and are acceptable.

Edited October 3, 2010 by La_Dolce_Vita

[- Paul - 3]

The report button exists for reporting. MF is not in the business of deciding who is right and or wrong. The offending and reporting post were both set invisible rather than have legal matters played out in public gaze. That meets the obligation of MF under s10 Electronic Communications Act 2000 and s8 Law Reform Act 1997 to protect itself.

 

The reporting post could in theory be a problem itself by in terms or directly accusing the original poster of lying. I am not suggesting it was in this case.

 

MF is not a newspapaer and the practice and etiquette of running a forum or bulletin board, and the responsibilities may well be different

 

Thanks for that explanation John

 

As regards

What concerns me personlly is that the DCC has admitted to lurking or monitoring, keeping an eye on what is posted. No one, not on here or IOM Newspapers has seen fit to comment. I think that is worthy of comment

 

I also think it is worthy of comment that IOM Newspapers did not seek the views of MF before having a dig. Thye are a commercial concern and the legal rule about responsibility by pre moderation or editing is different for them than for MF

 

 

Was it not mentioned some time ago in respect of a completely different matter not involving MF that IOM police 'monitor' or 'keep an eye' on websites. If I'm not mistaken, perhaps someone can recall the specifics.

 

As regards this incident, as the forum is open to the casual visitor to read most of the content, possibly word of mouth came into play? (only speculating here)

Having said that, if police do monitor websites as a matter of course then possibly questions might be asked on what basis and what cost and resorce implications arise.

As regards the commercial local media - what else can we honestly expect?

[Declan 5,789]

I take it then, Spook, that you would agree that PC Plod should monitor all communications between people, just in case anything seditious appears? If so, then combined with your delusional religious beliefs, you truly are a nutter.

 

This isn't "all communication between people" though. It's a public forum, comments here available to all and sundry to read (or monitor if your paranoid). We already knew the police read this forum, Derek Flint has posted many times and received a very rough ride (unfairly in my opinion); police have also urged caution after Pam Ayers's speculative comments regarding the death on a boat in Ramsey.

 

My take on this is that the forums discuss Manx society, the police are part of society and not the stasi. Why shouldn't individual officers read and contribute if they want? If we build a wall between them and the populace then we really are in trouble.

[La_Dolce_Vita 744]

You have a very different idea of what they are than I do. Yes, they are a part of society but not the public community. They do function intervene in it, but they are fundamentally something separate and alien. The same as all State organisations and institutions.