Lawyers? #
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:23 GMT
Be interested to hear the legal theory here. What's _running a forum_ if not an invitation to comment?
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:23 GMT
Be interested to hear the legal theory here. What's _running a forum_ if not an invitation to comment?
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:23 GMT
modded before it's displayed?
Mine's the one with the self-censorship chip in the pocket.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:23 GMT
But, I, they... bheheheh.... That's unpossible! The interrnet's very raison d'etre is the posting of rambling, ill thought-out screeds by retards. What will we all *do*?
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:23 GMT
Looks like it could be open season for the legal fraternity then. Allegedly!
Must remember to be more careful when commenting.
Allegedly.
W***ers! (Allegedly)
Pockets being emptied by the lawyers (Allegedly)
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:23 GMT
May I check if I have this correct?
A web site publisher who exercises no editorial control over the content of the site not written by him is likely to be less burdened by litigation than a (I posit) more responsible publisher who employs people to moderate contributions such as this one.
So Vulture Central will now be in a more sound position by not moderating this comment?
Bonkers
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:46 GMT
"[Bulletin board posts] are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out."
Would this change if the comment gets massively linked to or slashdotted?
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:46 GMT
It doesn't help that comments can be viewed from around the world and that each country has it's own ideas of what's OK and what's not. Even worse with the US which thinks it's laws are pre-eminent.
On a practical point of view surly comments fall into the same category as the traditional newspaper letters section.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:46 GMT
I heard that the staff of out-law.com torture squirrels with pointy sticks. I've also been told Reg hacks burn defenceless ants with magnifying glasses.
Does this count then (or will I be censored just in case)?
(PH is used to web-based legal issues...)
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:47 GMT
Everyone is an idiot. Sue us!
Signed,
Everyone at The Register.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 10:47 GMT
Yes, it does actually make some sense. If you don't moderate, you have no control over what's said (and may not be able to for something like LiveJournal where there are far too many comments to screen them). It's an analogy with the phone system, where the phone company is not responsible for things said on the phone even though they transmit them.
But if you exercise *any* editorial control at all, you are deemed to have taken an active part in publishing the comments and are therefore held responsible for them. You have actively decided that that specific comment is to be published.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 11:08 GMT
Jihad !
< followed by sound of el reg's doors being kicked in>
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 11:08 GMT
Did this mean that as soon as the ISP`s start filtering packets for P2P that they will be held responsiable for any traffic that they miss, as they have looked at the packet then allowed it to carry on?
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 11:16 GMT
Remember the old saying about what's the definition of 1000 lawyers laying drowned at the bottom of the Sea?
answer: a good start
(note the absence of a joke icon)
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 11:19 GMT
It seems to me that to invite reader comments on certain news stories is to risk breaching the strict court reporting rules about what can be said when. For example, when reporting a crime, you can pretty much speculate at will until somebody is charged, then you must be very careful until they have been tried. To allow readers to post "Glad they've got that toerag locked up, he's obviously guilty, I know him and he's been in trouble for the same thing before" at the bottom of your article would not be clever and could possibly get the case thrown out on the basis that it is no longer possible for the suspect to get a fair trial.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 11:42 GMT
Surely this is nothing but anthrax Iran nuclear device twin towers kill the president pedophile North Korea dirty bomb pure scaremongering?
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 11:42 GMT
Fact 1) The CTO at Phorm is a nice bloke called Stratis Scleparis
http://www.phorm.com/about/exec_scleparis.php
Fact 2) Before he was at Phorm, Stratis was CTO at BT Retail, where his responsibilities must surely have included authorising (and then authorising denial of) the secret and quite possibly illegal BT/Phorm internet interception trials
Fact 3) BT have an ethics policy which covers employees going to work for suppliers etc. A prize to anyone who can find evidence it's ever been used.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 11:42 GMT
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local_idiot_to_post_comment_on
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 12:37 GMT
I've certainly noticed that even people like the Daily Mail make damn sure that comments are turned off if the case is sub judice, as Judge hauls editor into the dock for contempt does not make the best of stories for the editor concerned, even if the rest of the papers enjoy reporting that.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 12:40 GMT
.... you make me realise that everyone in existence, past, present and future, is an arsehole.
I would LOVE to not have had to anonymous coward this, but unfortunately I found out that if you google my name my register comments appear pretty early on and I don't really want someone randomly googling me, reading that comment, and thinking I'm serious because they haven't bothered clicking through to the link.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 13:24 GMT
Now that would be a good slogan for a website. It ranks up there with "truculent, devious, and unreliable".
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 14:38 GMT
That the Moderatrix has not only the responsibility of ensuring only the cream of the comment crop get published (which has to make you wonder what the quality of the ones that don't get passed her are like)
But she also has the responsibilty of ensuring El Reg doesn't get sued back into the stone ages? Now that's quite some whip she's wielding over her employers!
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 14:40 GMT
What it means is that I'll have a fine white head of hair by Christmas. And finely-ground teeth.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 14:55 GMT
all Moderatrices will now be summarily sacked as any miniscule drop-off in their performance will be too great a risk for the site owner to mitigate?
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 15:02 GMT
"uninhibited, casual, and ill thought out"
Huh? I don't recall publishing my CV!
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 16:03 GMT
Huh!? Now I can say I've seen it all... Moderation firm. I wonder how long it will take for them to start outsourcing this too. Or have they already? Are they gonna kill my comment!?
@Sarah Bee
Don't worry, I believe you will still look cute in white hair. Not so sure about the teeth though...
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 17:21 GMT
Adrian Boutel, Well "running a forum" in the minds of a Labour Govt is using it as a megaphone but crushing any comments it does not like to hear. Yes Labour speak with forked tongues.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 17:21 GMT
el Reg has to add a "choose a disclaimer" box below the icon selection box?
This post is illogical, ill-thought out and not representative of valid opinion anywhere.
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 19:29 GMT
how many comments have been blocked as people decide to see how far they can push el-reg.
Dead vulture - because I know phorm are in the process of generating some sick comments and getting ready calling their solicitors! One less annoying group of semi-intelligent people to ask inconvenient questions on tha interweb!
Posted Tuesday 26th August 2008 19:29 GMT
Get those teeth sharpened to points instead of grinding them.
BTW, I know a rogue dentist who can install hollow canines with poison sacs so you can bite people and poison them. A variety of venoms are available including one which causes the bones and cartilage to dissolve, but the one I like is the one that makes the bitee turn purple and swell up like a balloon.
Posted Wednesday 27th August 2008 00:05 GMT
As I recall, both defamation and slander require that you (the person being defamed or slandered) go down in the estimation of more than one person as a result of what somebody else wrote/said. If you can find two ppl that believe what they read on an internet forum about someone then you should probably ask to move to another asylum.
Posted Wednesday 27th August 2008 09:17 GMT
"how many comments have been blocked as people decide to see how far they can push el-reg."
I'd be quite interested to see some graphs and stats! Bet they have some cracking comments stuck up on the wall in the El Reg office they couldn't publish! :)
Posted Wednesday 27th August 2008 09:59 GMT
So the law the page must obey is the one in the URL.
.uk? UK law.
.us? US law.
etc.
Posted Friday 29th August 2008 20:31 GMT
Allegedly: Just a bit of reg exp.
Allegedly: A quick browser plugin, to remove it again, at the behest of the viewer.
Allegedly: Version 1 Out Now.
Allegedly: sed -i 's/^/Allegedly: / /' comment
Allegedly: then pop into address bar of browser
Allegedly: JavaScript:p=document.getElementsByTagName('p');for(k=0;k<p.length;++k){f=p[k].firstChild;t=f.nodeValue;if(t){t=t.replace(/Allegedly/g,'');void(f.nodeValue=t);}}
Allegedly: Or if you are web maestro (better than master yes?) add it in button form
Allegedly: Available for Weddings, Bar & Bat Mitzvahs, also Discos as well.
Posted Saturday 30th August 2008 00:06 GMT
Allegedly: sed -i 's/^/Allegedly: / /' comment
Allegedly to:
Allegedly: sed -i 's/^/Allegedly: /' comment