The Blackbox Debate

Thu, 2 Nov 2006, 07:24 pm

Cassie_Dart30 posts in thread

I write regarding the closure and censorship of the below thread - Blackbox Management: Good or Bad? http://www.theatre.asn.au/node/5973 I recently had a young actress write to me and ask a question about her agency, so I sent her this link. It is a tradgic shame that dozens of people's comments have been censored, but I respect Theatre Australia for having posted that these messages were deleted as a result of one John W. of Blackbox Management. It is made clear to everyone what is really going on. This young actress was, suffice it to say, not happy in her current situation. Will you delete my post for saying that?

Thread (30 posts)

Threaded Flat

Cassie_DartThu, 2 Nov 2006, 07:24 pm

Neville TalbotFri, 3 Nov 2006, 06:37 pm

tragic yes

unexpected, no. Just wish I could be bothered following it up. Feel a little defamed by the implications of having my comments being censored in the first place... :-) I think the vast amount of newly-blanked postings does more to show the truth of the issue than any of what we all wrote. Beware! Nev It's the simple things stupid...

LabrugSat, 4 Nov 2006, 04:35 pm

Interesting Censorship

I find it most interesting that many of the comments "removed" actually had more to do with critical advise than actual defamation. I have no first hand experience of the agency myself and a lot of my posting were advice type comments and thoughts about the stong level of complaint.

When even tips and advice are censored, you then have to wonder.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
who can also sing and dance
Fight/Sword Choreographer
Virgin Director
UPstageWA Rep

Home Page

Tari-XalyrSun, 5 Nov 2006, 08:40 pm

Seriously

That is seriously sad. Like you both said the deleting of so many posts makes a better statement then what the posts themselves may have said in the first place. Does free speech (well text) exist? Or is this just how humanity reacts to anything negative? It's not an attack just general responses. ~ Tari The Writer is a child forever listening at the keyhole of the adult world.

Paul MclaughlinMon, 6 Nov 2006, 07:31 am

Free Speech?

There is no UNLIMITED free speech! What so many of the young kids who posted on that forum didnt know was that whatever they wrote regardless that it was on the net, if it was defamatory (under the law) then they were liable to prosecution. A lot of internet kiddies dont know this, so they post exactly what they are thinking. Which can lead to trouble. Free speech will always clash with protection of personal and business reputation. Thats the major tussle how to satisfy both and leave everyone happy. Best thing to do: get on with performing. Paul Mclaughlin.

LogosMon, 6 Nov 2006, 08:03 am

The way to avoid being sued

The way to avoid being sued (because defamation and libel are civil actions) is to tell only what can be supported by evidence as truth. Stated opinion is another issue. It is theoetically a defence to use the term "alleged" or "in my opinion" thereby removing the claim to fact. I do not believe that many of the posts on the BMA thread were defamatory as many of them simply repeated what we all say. Do your homework. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Tari-XalyrMon, 6 Nov 2006, 08:31 am

Ok clarification

I DO know there is no UNLIMITED free speech. Humanity cannot operate like that. Human flaw is always at fault. Besides the concept of "freedom" ,in my opinion, is an abstract concept, just like knowledge is an abstract concept. My point was people can claim an opinion without being attacked or ridiculed because of it. I believe that thread is a sad example of power struggles and control. But thats just me. ~ Tari The Writer is a child forever listening at the keyhole of the adult world.

LabrugMon, 6 Nov 2006, 08:33 am

Echos

My thoughts too. Most of the removed postings were simple statements of common sense. While there may have been some rather inflamitory remarks which I feel deserved removal, and in some case had been removed using built-in site features, most of those removed were non-specific, advice collumn type stuff.

When censorship can be used to suppress common sense, where can you go from there?

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
who can also sing and dance
Fight/Sword Choreographer
Virgin Director
UPstageWA Rep

Home Page

LogosMon, 6 Nov 2006, 11:25 am

I doubt that anyone will be

I doubt that anyone will be surprised when they read this. Free Speech should never be curtailed except when used to defame or maliciously damage the reputation of an individual or legal entity. The point is that we all have opinions and beliefs and curtailing anyone's right to say what they beleive is an infringement of their civil rights. I personally find for example the remarks made by Shiek al-Hilali about women to be very offensive BUT I have two probems with the storm of passion about them. 1) They have been quoted as stand alone out of context and that as we all know can vastly distort the intent of the original speaker. I woulds like to hear the entire speech. 2) They are his opinion. Whether or not I agree it is for him and his church to decide whether or not they are appropriate and act accordingly. This opinion of course is one of the problems I have with Islam. Particularly as there is very little Quranic support for the attitude. So Freedom of Speech. It is in my modest opinion one of the most basic rights of all and is a right upon which many of the freedoms of which we are so proud hinge. To once again quote Benjamin Franklin "He who is prepared to give up essential liberty in return for a little safety deserves neither liberty not safety." It's as basic as that. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Daniel KershawMon, 6 Nov 2006, 01:31 pm

Volitare once said, and I'm

Volitare once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I don't agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

LogosMon, 6 Nov 2006, 01:52 pm

Actually I THINK his

Actually I THINK his secretary said he would have said it if he'd thought of it. Therein lies the problem with freedom of speech. People who hold opinions regarding race, colour, religion, even what car you drive are allowed to say what they like as much as you are. Political correctness has started to lead us down a slippery slope of censorship at the bottom of which lies a world in which nobody can say anything that the government disagrees with. And we're back on censorship and it's mostly my fault. (Takes a bow and departs stage left.) Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Daniel KershawMon, 6 Nov 2006, 02:26 pm

I don't see the problem why

I don't see the problem why people can't criticise someone's work practices and say they are shit.

LogosMon, 6 Nov 2006, 03:21 pm

I agree

I agree. But in order to avoid legal action you must say it is your opinion that they are shit unless you can prove that they really are shit in a way that will stand up in court. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Neville TalbotMon, 6 Nov 2006, 06:07 pm

and as said earlier

a hell of a lot of the posts had nothing that was remotely defamatory towards this business. much was general advice, a lot replies to other posters, and some of it I seemed to remember was plain innocuous. some of mine in particular (which probably in hindsight deserved to be at the least 'edited') were aimed at a certain inflammatory poster, not BBM at all. My understanding, however, is that free speech is not a right guaranteed in Australian law anyway... anyone more full-bottle on constitutional law? Neville It's the simple things stupid...

Cassie_DartMon, 6 Nov 2006, 08:15 pm

Personal Experiences Matter

I think most of the comments were not defamatory, and I did read them all. I think it was a lot of people expressing their personal experience of a service given. When someone writes a review of a film or a meal or fills out a costumer service slip at coles, just because the review is not positive doesn't mean it's defamatory. In most cases it is just considered someone's opinion, unless of course your Mel Gibson :) To write about your own personal experience I think is completely legitimate. The real issue here is if someone has the money and the threat of legal action to muscle people's personal experiences out of the arena. I think the thread was a threat because of the shear volume of personal attributions, also because this site is considered a respected source of infomation between creators. Cassie Dart Actor-Writer-Director www.fixedpoint.com.au

Grant MalcolmMon, 6 Nov 2006, 09:07 pm

Damned if you do...

A little background, in case anyone is interested...

I do my level best to stay abreast of legalities in this area but IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

Organisations and individuals hosting unmoderated online forums and blogs are in a precarious situation.

Others can publish views and information on the blog or forum that might be illegal, defamatory or infringe copyright. They cause the material to be published and are legally responsible for consequences arising from its publication.

However there is australian legal precedent that demonstrates that once notified of the infringement, if the host doesn't take reasonable steps to address the issue (i.e. remove the offending material), then they may be held responsible for continuing to allow it to be published.

For this reason, if I'm notified of illegal, defamatory or copyright infringing material, specifically what material and why it should be removed, I will remove the material without question as soon as practical.

I'm not in a position to make a judgement about what the courts may or may not regard as defamatory. However, I do take the strong view that this site offers a forum for occasionally robust debate and discussion. In this context, I'd strenuously resist any suggestion that posts on this site could reasonably constitute defamation.

Quite apart from being entirely impractical, moderation or vetting of material prior to publication poses the additional dilemma that the act of moderation makes the moderator as culpable for what is published as the person contributing the information!

I earnestly believe I'm acting legally and responsibly by hosting a public forum that provides members with a means of voting offensive material out of prominence and a mechanism for dealing with complaints about infringing material.

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

StrangejuiceMon, 6 Nov 2006, 10:49 pm

bulldust

I highly doubt anyone is going to be "sued" here. It would only bring more unwanted attention onto the agency. What I am seeing here is paranoia at it's highest. It isn't easy to sue someone for defamation. They have to prove that it was deliberate, malicious, untrue with intent or agenda to sabotage their business. Let's everybody start getting a bit realistic here and a little less stuck in TV land.

NaTue, 7 Nov 2006, 05:51 am

I don't know the details,

I don't know the details, but yes, we do not have the right to free speech. This was (possibly) something that would have been introduced in a constitution if we had become a republic. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

Grant MalcolmTue, 7 Nov 2006, 07:33 am

Dusted

Strangejuice wrote:
> I highly doubt anyone is going to be "sued" here.

I've had two letters from law firms so far this year and have lost track of the number of people making threats based on "legal advice".

> It isn't easy to sue someone for defamation.

On the contrary, it is easy to sue for defamation. There are plenty of ambulance chasers that will gladly tell you that you've a strong case and will take your money to write threatening letters and mount a case.

It may not be easy to successfully sue for defamation. But you're never sure who they might pick a fight with. Invariably they seem to choose to go after anyone but the person who published the allegedly infringing information. It could be me, could be the ITA, could be individual committee members of that association, could be our hosts at Informed Technology, could be my ISP, or their ISP, the computer manufacturer... I've suggested they might want to go after the almighty for producing the electrons used in transmitting the allegedly infringing material.

I have a responsibility to act to protect the interest of others so that we're not sued for something that is nothing to do with us.

> Let's everybody start getting a bit realistic here and a little less stuck in TV land.

The reality is that plenty of people do live in a TV land populated with american litigious trash.

Live and learn:

http://www.nswscl.org.au/journal/57/Potter.html

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

LogosTue, 7 Nov 2006, 08:14 am

I am not a lawyer

I am definitely not an expert on constitutional law but here goes. Australia does not have a single piece of paper with the word Constitution written on top of it. We have a series of pieces of senior legislation such as the electoral act and the various taxation acts and acts defining the roles of the State and Federal Governments and their rights, duties and responsibilities. These acts do not define such things as freedom of speech. We also have a skein of tradition opinion and accepted practices that are known as common law. Certain "rights" we assume we have are more pious hopes based on usage and practice and the willingness of courts to acknowledge the power of common law. The USA which was the first country in the world to have a written constitution is also one of the few to have guaranteed rights such as those outlined in the so called "Bill of Rights" the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. These rights include the right to freedom of speech (which does not make it possible to defame without penalty) the right to free assembly (which we simply do not have) the right to form militia (which we probably don't want) the right to freedom of religion (which anti discrimination legislation more or less gives us) and the right not to incriminate ourselves in a court of law (which we definitely don't have). There are others but can't remember them at the moment. Every country debates having it's own Bill of Rights every now and then but no Government other than the US has as yet been willing to give up the powers that would be curtailed if we had one. (Ask a journo friend about d-notices sometime.) The UN has written a Universal Declarations of Human Rights and while most of the world has said "Yeah it's a good thing" no-one has as yet included it in it's nations laws. A bit long winded and a touch simplistic. My degree has a second major in political history so I apologise if I sound patronising. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

stingerTue, 7 Nov 2006, 04:50 pm

He is not a lawyer

Logos said: "Australia does not have a single piece of paper with the word Constitution written on top of it". What about the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900? Or the Constitution Act 1889 (WA)? You're right, there is not a single one, there are 8 or 9 of the buggers! Logos also said: "The USA which was the first country in the world to have a written constitution". That is of course to ignore such scraps of paper as the English 'Magna Carta'. I'm sure the Greeks, Romans and French would have something to say about that as well. You may be confusing 'constitution' per se with 'bill of rights' which the Americans (and others) have incorporated in their constitutions. Ssstinger>>>

Tari-XalyrTue, 7 Nov 2006, 09:54 pm

1901

Techinically January 5th 1901. . .we jsut finished studying Aust in history. . .woo fun... ~ Tari The Writer is a child forever listening at the keyhole of the adult world.

Tari-XalyrTue, 7 Nov 2006, 09:55 pm

1901

Techinically January 5th 1901. . .we jsut finished studying Aust in history. . .woo fun... ~ Tari The Writer is a child forever listening at the keyhole of the adult world.

Paul MclaughlinThu, 9 Nov 2006, 01:53 pm

On the subject of free speech.

Im not stuck in TVLand. On the contrary i happen to be in the fourth year of a Law degree. AND wouldnt you know it i happen to be studying a media communications law subject at the moment... Reading the thread there were a good many posters children or otherwise who (i think) because of the isolation and assumed freedom that the digital age provdes let fly on the subject. A statement of opinion is one thing, but a a number of posts were guilty of imputations that caused obvious damage to (1) personal and (2) business reputation or caused a "shun and avoid" effect. Theses are the current standards in Australian law. YES truth is a complete defence (so long as it is proved) but it is more extenuted than simply "they promised me stardom but all i got was a dodgy TV commerical". To LOGOS: it appears you need to do your homework. Quite clearly many documents cite the Australian Constitution as referred to by Stinger AND because corporations arent viewed in Law as endowed with emotional characteristics etc that Humans are they are SEVERLY RESTRICTED to a VERY limited cause of action as compared to persons in suing for defamation. Paul.

StrangejuiceThu, 9 Nov 2006, 05:01 pm

bang

Come on guys Nothing a shotgun wouldn't fix

LogosFri, 10 Nov 2006, 01:59 pm

I was wrong

I shot my mouth off without checking the faulty memories of a twenty year ago course. Yes we do have a written constitution although apart from a few long ago repealed remarks about Indiginous Australians it says nothing about the relationship between the governed and the governors. Should it? I think it should and if we do become a republic I hope our new constition will contain some sort of Bill of Rights. It seems to be becoming more important every day. Stinger: I would love to engage in a debate with you one day about whether or not the Magna Carta is a constitution. I don't beleive it is. It was a document designed to preserve the powers that a mob of fuedal Barons didn't want to lose. It started England on the road to a constitutional monarchy because it actually curtailed and defined the powers of the king but if Simon De Montford had realised he was establishing the beginnings of democracy and power for the people he wouldn't have been happy. Paul: Yes Corporations and other legal entities are limited in their ability to claim defamation but they can and they can win. The Maclibel case in England is a case in point even though MacDonalds were awarded the "lowest coin of the realm" as damages. A great number of legal entities have also successfully sued "Private Eye" magazine in the UK. In fact doesn't everyone who sues Private Eye win? In addition to legal entities it can also be very difficult for certain public figures to successfully sue for defamation as the court can decide that it would not be reasonable to assume that people believed the defamation to be true. Pat Robertson versus Larry Flint in the US was a case in point. An evangelist was portayed as having sex with a stranger in a barn in an advert in Hustler Magazine and the court decided that it was unreasonable to assume that people believed the portrayal so therefore damage in the form of "shun and avoid" could not be proven. The point that very little on the original thread was actually defamatory was lost in all this. Some of the remarks were down right unpleasant and insulting like the other thread about dance schools. but not much was defamatory. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Walter PlingeTue, 14 Nov 2006, 06:12 pm

Wow.

I totally agree that the deleting of comments makes a bigger statement than what the comments said themselves. So I was thinking of applying, I'd received the call from them and everything, etc etc. Told my parents that they ask for $165. Parents freaked out, saying that they've been scammed before in the past with similar stuff. I was skeptical towards my parents at first, thinking 'why would they scam you?' So their address in Melbourne is The Focal Building 325/299 Spring Street Melbourne, VIC, 3000 Dad looked it up in the Melways.. You see how it says the 'Focal Building'? In the Melways: "Focal Apts" i.e. focal apartments. Out of curiosity, I typed into Google, 'define:black box'. It came up with several electrical definitions. As well as: "A securitization issue where no or scanty details are known about the collateral, that is, underlying assets. Normally this is the case where the SPV issues securities backed by receivables of multiple originators." "When the exact operations of a given system aren't known outside the system, it is referred to as a black box. This means that its inner workings can't be seen." Interesting. Shows that I am indeed still a gullible, naive young'n :P

homerjTue, 14 Nov 2006, 07:01 pm

HAAAAA, best comment i've

HAAAAA, best comment i've read strangejuice!!! i can accomodate, how about a trg42 .338 lap for example?

StrangejuiceTue, 14 Nov 2006, 10:47 pm

Harden up

and grow a f****in moustache!

LabrugWed, 15 Nov 2006, 08:30 am

Curious

Someone would appear to be voting down some of these postings. This one isn't that bad at all. quite factual.

I wonder who could be doing that?

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
who can also sing and dance
Fight/Sword Choreographer
Virgin Director
UPstageWA Rep

Home Page

← Back to Billboard Bulletins