Because Stinger asked
Fri, 13 Feb 2009, 11:16 amadministrator23 posts in thread
Because Stinger asked
Fri, 13 Feb 2009, 11:16 amWho is the Judge, Jury & Executioner here?
Author: stinger
Date: 13/02/2009 - 09:45
(a)Who decides if something posted on this website is defamatory?
(b)What qualifications do they have to do so?
(c)Who is said to have been defamed?
(c)Since when has it been policy of this website to remove a post on the grounds of "defamatory information" anyway?
If we all knew that we could have a post removed just by claiming that it contained defamatory material and requesting its removal, I suggest that there would be very little left on here. Also, it should be borne in mind that TRUTH is a complete defence to a claim of defamation.
Come on 'Administrator' - let's have your reasons and satisfy our curiousity.Puzzled
Ssstinger>>>
***
(a) I sincerely don't believe anything posted on this website can constitute defamation. But I will act, as a matter of courtesy, on specific complaints regarding allegations of defamatory content.
(b) No decision involved, no qualifications required.
(c) Usually, by implication, the complainant.
(d) Always. Please read the disclaimer (under the about menu).
You are correct regarding the possible implications of this policy. Thanks for drawing that to everyone's attention.
;-)
Cheers
Grant
Just to clarify if I may,
Fri, 13 Feb 2009, 04:42 pmJust to clarify if I may, Logos, that the issue wasn't that there was defamation in a review, but something quite different.
While the constitutional concept of Freedom of Speech is American only and was introduced to protect individuals who criticised government agencies, the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship describes the notion as...
Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.
The message didn't fit those criteria, in my view.
I also wish Review threads could be about reviews. I saw a wonderful production last night and wanted to enjoy that and read others' views as it was still clearly in my head. That joy and stimulation is one of the things I'd like a site about theatre to reflect and I was happy that the post was removed as it did nothing towards that.