Censorship Policy

[Murray]

Does this BB have a censorship policy other than the words that appear in the FAQ (reprinted below)

Censoring Posts
The bulletin board administrators have the power to censor certain words that may be posted. This censoring is
not an exact science, however, so certain words may be censored out of context. Please realize that the
censoring, if any censoring is being performed, is being done by a computer based on the words that are being
screened. Words that are censored are replaced with asterisks.

If there is no other policy who decides? and how is it decided to censor certain posts? In other words who is the Sherrif of the BB? Where is the Censorship Policy? how do we get to read it? What are the rules? Who determines what is right and what is wrong? Who says what is in bad taste and what is acceptable? Who decides if a player can be named or not? Is there any form of appeal?

Only Collingwood people know what we feel - the rest will never understand.

[GeorgeQ]

Murray,

This board is moderated by members who have been here for some time. We moderate on a weekly roster basis. The policy for editing or deleting posts is very simple; do not personaly attack a person (comment on the content of the post), no bad language, and no material that could result in legal action being taken against the board.

Yesterday I edited one of your posts which in my opinion attacked the person, not the content of the post. I would and will do it again. Yesterday I also removed the name of the player associated with a rumour. Once again I would do it again.
Both these instances went against the rules of the board so I acted.

[junkboy75]

the board will not allow any posts that has the potential to be defamatory. this includes the naming of players. if a player feels that he has been defamed by the post, he can sue the board. initially, it won't be the poster who gets into strife. the person who is suing will target the board and its owners first.

that's why we ask that people use discretion when discussing any rumours or innuendo. to protect the board from litigation, we like to err on the side of caution

"..we flew at them as a hawk to his prey, passed through them in the disordered state in which they were, separated them into two distinct parts and then tacked upon their largest division.." -- Captain Cuthbert Collingwood, 1797

[Mike]

Murray

This Bulletin Board used to be a dictatorship with me as the dictator. That got to be too much for me and we created a moderation group to take care of that function. The group is made up of 27 users of the BB and is rostered to moderate 3 at a time for a week.

The group is obviously diverse so standards vary as the moderators change from week to week, but that adds some variety. The weekly roster also means that if you don't like the way someone moderates you only have to wait a week and there will be somebody else doing the job. Anybody who has established themselves as a regular on the Bulletin Board can be a moderator. They need only apply to the moderation group and be accepted. The moderation group not only moderate, they work as a group to administer the Bulletin Board and provide each other with support and advice.

Moderators moderate using common sense. The broad principle we use is that abuse, defamation and profanity are not welcome and will be modified or removed. You can see that written on the front page of the Bulletin Board. There are some other taboos. Players' friends and families are out of bounds and their personal lives remain their personal lives. If it doesn't affect their football and reeks even slightly of gossip, rumour, innuendo or all of the above it is likely to disappear. There are other boards that aren't as strict so we don't feel any commitment to be the 'Truth' of the Bulletin Board world.

The rumour that was circulating yesterday had the potential to be not only defamatory, but also unsettling to the player concerned and the team. I'm sure that it is no co-incidence that this should be raised now at a time when the whole team needs to be focussed on its football. Any supporter crying because they can't discuss potentially damaging issues about players personal lives as we head into an elimination final needs to have another look at his/her support.

Moderators decisions can be queried and the 'General Feedback' forum is available for doing this, but you should be aware that there is no such thing as freedom of speech in here (or in any Bulletin Board). If it is decided that what you have written needs to be modified or removed then it will be. Freedom of speech is between us and our government it has nothing to do with a Bulletin Board.

Defamation and it's definitions are currently under review by the legislators. Currently defamation is a civil matter, there is no point in suing people with no money and that protects us to a certain extent - because we have none.

But the defamation laws are changing and defamation could become a part of the criminal code so that a defamed person could bring charges that would be prosecuted by the State. The result of a successful prosecution could be imprisonment.

That hasn't happened yet to my knowledge, but is certainly planned. If you think we're a bit touchy now....

[This message has been edited by Mike (edited 11 September 2002).]

[Murray]

Thanks for the feedback guys.
It does however open up some interesting points.
1. Should a written policy on censorship be available to read on the BB somewhere so that people who wish to post an opinion are fully aware of what the policy is.
2. It would appear that based on the your most welcomed feedback that censorship is currently in the "eye of the beholder" and therefore open to interpretation.
3. Shouldn't censorship rules be consistant so that at any given time, regardless of who the moderators are, the censorship rules are the same and are known by everyone.
4. You say one of my posts was censored (edited) yesterday, that is all well and good but had I been able to read and take in what the policy is, there would have been no need to edit my post, or presumably many other such posts.

In any event it is a very interesting topic one I am sure many other people would like to comment on.
Once again thanks for the informative and prompt feedback


Only Collingwood people know what we feel - the rest will never understand.

[Miss_Lisey_Molloy]

OMG i am soooooo sorry! I totally forgot that you weren't supposed to say his name! All day in school I felt really guilty and now I understand if i am in trouble with you people! Im sorry!
Love always, Alyssa xoxo

__________________________________
Lisey Molloy! Jarrod Molloy's No.1 Fan!

*~Official Leader of the Jarrod Molloy cheersquad~*

*~Alyssa's song of the week~*
"Out on the road 2day I saw a dead-head sticker on a Cadillac, A little voice inside my head said "don't look back, u can neva look back" *Boys Of Summer-Don Henley*"

[Buckley Surfers]

Look, there is no point letting Mike or others wear the heat for this one. I emailed Mike and suggested it would be prudent to pull that whole thread because apart from being destabilising to the club at an important time of the year it was, in my considered opinion, a thread that could give rise to serious legal issues.

These legal issues include elements of defamation as well as other exotic bits of law including the right to a fair trial shoudl any charge be alid in future. Defamation laws are complex and I do not intend to write a book here about them but fact is the thread contained material that would have exposed the operators of this site to some serious litigation risk. Remember that right now there is only some unsourced and unsubstantiated allegations. Even the facts of the issue have not been fully determined let alone published. Dangerous turf as far as defamation is concerned.

Mike is right to say the laws are complex and also that they are rather uncertain right now. The defamation laws with tehir need for publication were adequate for a static, paper based world but make for total confusion when applied to the web. The current Gutnick case proves that lawyers will forum shop for the best place to launch their legal action and in Australia each state has its own jurisdiction with its own rules. Publication, from a defamation viewpoint, is not a fully settled issue but the best current thinking suggests that if it is downloaded within a jurisdiction then the case can be mounted there - and the Gutnick case currently (pending appeal) sets that as Australian law. So basically 6 different sets of rules could be applied to any comment and action could be taken in the state jurisdiction where the plaintiff (person claiming they were defamed) sees the best chance for a win.

Therefore tpo try and apply some sortt of policy to these situations is fraught with danger because it could be either too restrictive or too open. The best way to go about it is to have a policy that reads something like this "1. Any material which in the opinion of the webmaster/moderators is or may be defamatory will be removed 2. Where the modertaor/webmaster is made aware that any material on the site which may be defamatory every step will be taken to remove this material as soon as possible"

Beyond that level of flexibility we would be platying with fire. Freedom of speech is a valuable thing but so is the freedom of people like Mike to run a site like this that gives us all so much pleasure to go about their lives without the threat that someone's comment - no matter how innocnet or well intentioned - may lead to court cases, legal expenses etc etc.

On the issue of criminal versus civil liability - there is no current criminal liability but the test in a civil court is an eadsier test to satisfy (balance of probabilities c.f. beyond reasonable doubt) so it makes it much easier to prove civil defamation. Proof of course brings with it the threat of heavy damages especially when it relates to someone's good name and reputation.

If anyone wants to take me to task on why I considered the posts of the 24 hours to be potentially defamatory they can email me at driver@magpies.net As for broader matters, this post is presented for information only and should not be relied upon by anyone as legal advice pertaining to their own unique fact circumstances (yes, disclaimer time!)

Cheers and GO WOODS!

From Driver - Buckley Surfers

WE'RE COLLINGWOOD - AND THEY'RE NOT!

[Joel]

Murray it is upto the moderators as to how they moderate. The general consensus among the moderators is that if something is risky then it shouldn't be there.

You are in the minority. Why is it that the people in the minority are often the most vocal?

JDF

[Brown26]

Settle Joel, no need for that.

Murray has raised a valid point, but the facts are it's too damn hard to write a set of rules that cover EVER circumstance. And different moderators ahve different interpretations of those rules.

So basically we say use your common sense, and people generally are pretty good. There aren't that many circumstances when a person sits down and posts something abusive / defamatory (and has to be censored) when they haven't done it in anger (ie after a game, etc.) So they're usually pretty good about it after the fact.

Personally, I remove names from rumours, and personal attacks immediately, and ask other moderators about other things, personally I would have asked the other moderators wether or not to delete / end that thread, which is what happened, and the general concensus was yes.

It's all about understanding where the other person is coming from - and if you're not happy with what a moderator has done, tell them!! But don't unleash any crazy personal attacks, just ask for an explanation, we're all reasonable people here, so there's usually a fairly good reason.

cheers,
- Ben

Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

[Joel]

Sorry, was a bit far, but I can get frustrated a bit quickly sometimes. Anyway, you are correct on asking the other moderators, that is why I did not delete the post but rather close it. Furthermore, there was a post in admin about following the lead of FTO and closing it. Rather than putting the board at risk while we decide whether to delete it. Mike then deleted it because he thought it was in the best interests of the board to do so.

JDF

[Mike]

Murray, now to answer your question: Should a written policy on censorship be available to read on the BB somewhere so that people who wish to post an opinion are fully aware of what the policy is?

At the top of the front page of the Bulletin Board is this: Please note that posts containing abuse, defamation or gratuitous profanity will be removed or modified. That's very broad, but I think sets the tone of what is expected and also states very clearly that we are prepared to take action if posts step outside our limits.

Define the limits? It would be wonderful, especially for the moderators, if there could be a list of rules or a formula that allowed us to define exactly when a post overstepped the bounds. It's not possible, to write a policy that covers every eventuality. Even to cover those items that we deal with regularly would be almost impossible unless our policy is broad, which it is.

We all have different standards and have to accept that there will be differences of opinion from time to time, but then it's differences of opinions that drive the board.

[Brown26]

That's cool Joel, we've had some pretty torid weeks moderating, I tend to go over the top too at the start of an issue, to try not to let the situation get inflamed, I don't want another Carey!!

- Ben

Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

[Murray]

Thanks for all the comments and welcomed feedback. I really enjoy any well thought out debate on ones "freedoms"

Joel, I have been in the minority all of my life it is nothing new for me. Take a look at my personal icon mate it says all there is to know about me.
Mike, your reply is more to the point and I thank you for it.I accept your point on the policy stuff and the reasons why it is too difficult. However in regard to "it is opinions that make the board great" or words to that effect, that is exactly one of the points I am trying to make (obviously not very well) Are your opinions moderated? Are your opinions allowed to be posted unedited? I really dont know the answer to that. But I do know that my opinions can be and are at times edited. Is my opinion less valid than yours?
I accept that this BB does not wish to have the player in question named. Would you allow the player to be named if he did not play for Collingwood? I don't know the answer to that either.
We happily post rumours about players going from this club to that club, about players having fist fights in pubs, about players having affairs with other players wives, all of which are unsubstaintiated and are probably defamatory, but we post them anyway. Thanks for your opinion.

Only Collingwood people know what we feel - the rest will never understand.

[Brown26]

Murry,

I get the feeling that you're unhappy that your posts are moderated. That's ok, most people are, but arguing wether or not th emoderator's posts need to be moderated is not a great way to go about the issue!

the answer to your question is yes the moderators posts are censored by the other moderators on that time, but also by strength of numbers in the moderation forum.

some people say things in the heat of the moment that are a problem for the board, usually, USUALLY, a moderator recognises this after the fact and is happy to change their post. Usually!!

Censorship will always be an issue, and I reckon it's better to err on the side of caution than get sued. Interpretation of defamaiton etc will also be an issue, but I garauntee no-one is head hunting you for censorship etc, we try to do the same no matter who it is, even other moderators.

I completely understand your concern, but it'd be bloody impossible to make a set of censorship rules that apply to everything, and so the moderators just ahve to use their discresion, including when censoring other moderators posts. Belive me it does happen!!

- Ben

Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

[Mike]

Murray, there's an implied accusation in that question which I don't much like the smell of, but I'll ignore it and just address the words. Our credibility wouldn't last long and neither would this board if the rules weren't applied evenly and consistently. My posts are as open to scrutiny as yours or anyones. Please give me an example of something that I have posted that has had favourable treatment. Please give me examples of all your edited posts.

Yes we are more sensitive to Collingwood issues, of course we are. It would be a very strange Collingwood site if we weren't, but items that are potentially defamatory are removed regardless of who is being defamed.

"We happily post rumours about players going from this club to that club, about players having fist fights in pubs, about players having affairs with other players wives, all of which are unsubstaintiated and are probably defamatory, but we post them anyway."

Where?

Show me a defamatory topic anywhere on this board. Ask Craig how difficult it was to get a topic about Wayne Carey up and running (he wasn't successful). If you are going to accuse us of inconsistency you should first be damned sure of your facts. I am not surprised you have trouble understanding defamation.


[Mike's topics can be edited just like anyone elses - so we can make them a little less anal... KIDDING MIKE!!(I always wanted to edit one of his... - Ben]

[This message has been edited by Brown26 (edited 12 September 2002).]