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
administratorFri, 13 Feb 2009, 11:16 am
Who 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
marcieFri, 13 Feb 2009, 11:34 am
removed post
Sorry if this is speaking out of turn.
Many messageboards remove posts for lots of different reasons, including making attacks on another member. It's usually done with no explanation whatsoever. Most boards won't even allow anonymous postings, so Walter shouldn't feel the need to complain.
I'd have loved the thread to contain only messages about the production.
jeffhansenFri, 13 Feb 2009, 12:32 pm
If you have a look in the
If you have a look in the FAQ's at thread about which agencies to avoid, there is a long line of "removed at the request of XYZ - possible defamatory content", which makes the thread a little hard to follow.
This is obviously not a new trend. Is it done to avoid the posibility of legal action by the complainant, or just as a courtesy to our registered member, who may have been defamed by a Walter?
If the complaint is made against a registered member whose identity is known, is it Grant's place to remove the post? Is the site, or the administrator, legally liable for allowing a defamatory post to remain? Is there a possibility that remove of a post could constitute grounds for legal action?
I would like to suggest that we all just play nice, get our message across, and have a bit of fun without the nastiness.
www.meltheco.org.au
LabrugFri, 13 Feb 2009, 01:51 pm
To Jeff From Jeff
Not sure if you recall that one Jeff, but the ITA and Site Reps were being threatened with legal confrontations if the rather negative comments about them were not removed. In the interests of self-preservation, it was removed. Many users, including myself, believe the requesting body went too far asking for comments that were neither pro or con, just simple observations, to be removed.
Since then, slanderous commentary has been strictly monitored. Being a Community service, there simply are not the resources to deal with someone who is prepared to go to those lengths.
Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)
Jeff Watkins
LogosFri, 13 Feb 2009, 02:23 pm
Me Again
First of all. Grant I am not having a go at you. I understnd your and the ITA's reason for removing posts and while disagreeing with your stand will accept it.
Now for the rant.
Removing points at the simple request of a person is giving in to schoolyard bullies. Defamation in a review of a performance is not defamation no case brought against any reviewer of a performance and a film for criticism of that performance has ever been successful.
In theory no statemnet of opinion if it is clear that it is opinion is actionable but that is a little more dodgy.
Truth is an absolute defence.
In addition (and i am not a lawyer) I believe that it is necesary that damage to the person or persons involved must be proven for an action for libel or slander to win. There are lawyers on this site, am I correct.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are a rapidly dissappearing luxury under our present governments and with the increasing tendency to litigation that is taking over the world. As a playwright I despair of the future and people don't even seem to care.
Long live Larry Flynt and may he continue to win his defences under freedom of speech before the US Supreme Court. I wish there were more like him.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
stingerFri, 13 Feb 2009, 02:33 pm
My client Mr Pinkshirt,...
... he whose posting was removed purely on the complaint of Mr G Ross, may well claim that there was nothing defamatory in what he wrote, that he was simply taking issue with what Mr G Ross wrote in his alleged 'review'. Mr G Ross, feeling that his credibility was under attack, may well have bleated out the 'D' word, sending our esteemed Administrator scurrying for his censor's switch, regardless of the merit or otherwise of what Mr Pinkshirt actually wrote.
I must say, with respect, that I am somewhat dismayed at the thin-skinnedness of both gentlemen in this instance :(
Ssstinger>>>
marcieFri, 13 Feb 2009, 04:42 pm
Just to clarify if I may,
Just 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.
Greg RossFri, 13 Feb 2009, 05:01 pm
The Real Issue
I made no use of the word defamatory – that’s your incorrect assumption Peter – misguided for a lawyer I would have thought. Nor did I infer slander, or request that the post was removed.
What concerned me was that it was very obviously a personal attack by some prick too scared to put his / her / its name to it and this site is supporting that, under the guise of Freedom of Speech.
I don't have an issue with anybody disagreeing with me, BUT I do want the
opportunity of talking the issue through with that person, if they’re making public
statements and I’m quite happy to come to their house / office / theatre /
cell.
So stop the crap Peter, why don’t you call me son and ask, instead of rambling on about disappointment. And Logos, I’ll relate you a lesson an old Italian chap taught me at a mine site in the Goldfields back in the early ‘70s - the 1970s!
It was crib time and, being young, (it was a long time ago!), male and loaded with testosterone, I was leafing through a copy of Penthouse. A particularly revealing spread caused me to stop reading the article and I showed the photo to the rest of the boys.
Everyone thought it was a great shot, except for the older Italian, he looked at me and said, “How would you like it if that was your sister, daughter, mother or girlfriend? Would you show everybody then. No, because it would be somebody’s ruined life.”
Free speech Logos? I’m with you. BUT with it comes responsibility and on this site, as long as people can attack without fear of being identified, free speech is a very lopsided coin.
Oh, one other question, Peter, how do you know the poster was male?
Greg Ross
Minister for Good Times.
stingerFri, 13 Feb 2009, 08:33 pm
And your point is...?
On 13/02/09, Administrator wrote (about a posting on the review page from one Walter Pinkshirt):
"This post removed by the administrator 13/2/2009 at the request of Greg Ross for reason defamatory information."
Thus, if my assumption was incorrect, as Mr Ross now claims, it was nevertheless based on a very reliable source.
Apart from defending his chastity, Mr Ross still hasn't explained why this post, among thousands of personal attacks on this website (quite a few proudly authored by Mr Ross himself) was so heinous as to have to have been removed by the site nazi :)
I am led to wonder if there is any connection between this incident and the strange disappearance from this site of Mr Ross' recent review of 'Dralion' (attacked by Mr Pinkshirt for not having included a declaration of vested interest)? Is it possible that Mr (or Ms) Pinkshirt made a further embarrassing accusation of misuse of the review page for blatant publicity purposes? If so, surely a simple denial would have sufficed?
Finally, could someone please tell Mr Ross that I am not his 'son' (thank Christ!)?
Ssstinger>>>
Grant MalcolmFri, 13 Feb 2009, 09:19 pm
Really?
Greg Ross wrote:
> I made no use of the word defamatory –
> that’s your incorrect assumption
> Peter – misguided for a lawyer I would
> have thought. Nor did I infer slander,
> or request that the post was removed.
Perhaps Greg, you would care to post a copy of the email you did send me and thus clarify the matter for all concerned?
Or perhaps you and Stinger will spare us all the details, set aside your differences and join the rest of us at a local theatre... well, in my case, I'm there in spirit if not in the flesh.
Cheers
Grant
--
Director, actor and administrator of this website
Greg RossFri, 13 Feb 2009, 11:00 pm
Taking Grant's Advice
Peter
What are you trying to say pal? That I'm paid by
various theatre companies?
You're obviously enjoying playing Devils Advocate
and throwing around sly innuendo, but I can see where you're pinned. Your
assumptions are very wrong and whoever your "very reliable source" is, they were
also very wrong.
But that's not stopping you is it.
You and I are going to put a stop to your nonsense,
I work in Fremantle, so do you, I'll pop around to your office Monday morning
and we'll sort it cock.
Greg Ross
Greg Ross
Minister for Good Times
TaureanSat, 14 Feb 2009, 01:37 am
unbelievable.....
After reading the preceding diatribe I am reminded of two young boys haggling over the age old "my Dad can beat your Dad" argument. I actually have to remind myself that these two are educated, fully grown, adult males and not kids in a schoolyard.
Please let this be the end of it, or at least the end of it on here.
"Be nice to your Tech's - or they'll turn out the lights and go home!"
LogosSat, 14 Feb 2009, 09:44 am
A general observation
Marcie I agree with you about the reviews and often they are attacked by people who claim to have no interest but whose statemants clearly reveal they are members of the cast or crew. Adverse reviews have at least on one occasion been removed because of accusations of Defamation.
Other posts have been similarly removed for the same reason.
Posts can be moderated down by readers who disapprove of them and this should be the limit of censorship here.
I am aware of what the removed post said and feel that Mr Ross's response was an overreaction. Did it really cause him harm? Will those who know him really believe what was said? Was it true? The answers should be Yes, Yes, No. before any action to gag should be applied
Freedom of Speech.
This was not introduced into the US Constitution to allow people to criticise Government Departments it is enshrined in one of the ten amendments to the US Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. It's intent was to stop Government or individuals from gagging people by bullying techniques. It was written by Thomas Jefferson one of the greatest political minds of his generation. It is not unique to the US and is included similarly in the French Consitution.
It is also included in the UN Declaration of Human rights.
It has been largely negated in the US by the introduction of various Homeland Security legislation.
Common Law which is the ever increasing skein of legal usage which has been growing since medieval times also has certain protections in it regarding Freedom of Speech.
If you think the press in this country is free ask a journalist friend about D Notices although I believe he/she is not allowed to tell you anything.
Artists in this country are limted by the sedition acts introduced by the last Governemnt and maintained by this one. It means you cannot criticise the Government particularly in its attempts to "save" us from terrorists.
A visual artist in Melbourne was I belive arrested for displaying an Australian flag in a work of art which could have been interpreted as supporting the Moslem members of our society. She was released without charge but her work was confiscated and never returned.
Each time we allow a piece of censorship to go by uncriticised we hammer a nail into the coffin of our freedom. I do not support statements which are racist or incite hatred but do feel that this attitude is sometimes used to gag thoise who have genuine concerns. And clearly certain legislations that have been introduced actually incite fear and hatred of other cultures. The media regularly uses pejorative terms and slanted reporting and no action is taken against them if it supports the Governments fear campaigns.
Freedom is a two edged sword it can cut you as well as your enemy.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
marcieSat, 14 Feb 2009, 11:14 am
I agree it should be the
I agree it should be the end and am sorry to prolong by even one post. I'm really sorry if I expressed myself badly/am confused/misinformed or all three about the concept of freedom of speech. I do know more than that exists but just wanted to point out that people hadn't even read the message concerned.
I feel equally strongly about the word 'censorship' being thrown around to justify anything at all anyone at all wants to say in any place they choose. 'Censorship' is something we all practise constantly if we're decent people - for all sorts of reasons, including relevance. Other boards practise this form all the time and I wish it existed more here.
I just wanted to read and possibly sometimes write about theatre, but have found that very difficult.
stingerSun, 15 Feb 2009, 12:45 pm
giving in to schoolyard bullies
I agree that there should be a lot more of what dame Edna would call "niceness" on this site. And just to show that I am really a 'nice person', this will be my last word on this matter.
I no longer care what it was WP allegedly alleged Mr G Ross was up to (and which he has not yet actually denied). I do not identify with or speak for WP in any way shape or form, nor do I have any personal animosity against Mr G Ross, who, I am assured by those who know him, is also a 'nice person'.
It goes against my nature however to stand by and watch a prime example of cyber-bullying or manipulation of a 'nice' website go unchallenged. If I hadn't raised the issue, it would have been possible for any prima donna whose feelings were hurt by something written about him or her on this site, however innocuous or true, to simply fire off a veiled threat of "D" action to the administrator and thus have the offending post removed without question.
My thanks to Logos, who, while admittedly is not a lawyer, has put the issue more succinctly and convincingly than I could have myself. Also to the long-suffering Administrator, who has been dragged reluctantly into the dust of the arena without stifling the debate.:)
By the way - I would much rather be at community theatre, but there's NOTHING ON!!!
Ssstinger>>>
Walter PlingeSun, 15 Feb 2009, 01:53 pm
Some Enchanted Evening is
Some Enchanted Evening is on at Garrick Theatre until Feb 21.
Life x 3 is on at Wanneroo until Feb 28.
Life Mooches On is on at Taylor's Art & Coffee House until Feb 28.
25 Summer Nights is on at the Blue Room until March 6.
Gone A Million opens at Stirling on Feb 20.
Else & Norm's Macbeth opens at Harbour on Feb 20.
Look Who's Talking opens at Kwinana on Feb 20.
Walter PlingeSun, 15 Feb 2009, 03:16 pm
And Embers is on at the
And Embers is on at the Playhouse tonight (Feb 15) - a very worthwhile cause.
LogosSun, 15 Feb 2009, 06:07 pm
Niceness and The End
Yes indeed, if only we all could be nice. And not in anonymous way. I am opposed to anonymity, especially the sort of anonymous denunciations the government calls upon me to carry out against my neighbours. Hmmm, ID cards, central records systems, anti sedition legislation, and several minority scapegoat groups. What was the date, 1933, and where am I living?
Marcia: please don't think I am having a go at you. It is important that we all understand the dangers inherent in these creeping attitudes, loss of a basic liberty such as freedom of speech can easily lead to the loss of other liberties, have we so soon forgotten what happened to Mohammed Haniff.
I do agree that Freedom of Speech should not be used as a cloak for pure racism and hate mongering but feel that there are better ways of dealing with it than censorship. Remember, it is equally possible to use over sensitivity to some issues to gag debate and therefore not allow a true and clean resolution of the problem.
I'm sorry I have extended this debate more, but on this issue I am hard to shut up. And it is one that we as performing artists should be aware of and have an opinion on.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
LogosSun, 15 Feb 2009, 06:18 pm
Sorry but No.
Sorry Greg but I do not accept your example as a valid support of censorship.
The young woman in question entered voluntarily into a contract for which she would have been well recompensed. It would not be my place to criticise her even if she were a relative or friend of mine, provided she were adult and had made her own free decision. It was her body and her choice and I fail to see where her life was ruined.
You accepted criticism from an older man who comes from a culture that, by our standards at that time, had an older far more paternalistic attitude to their women.
Respect is I believe what you are talking about. Did you show respect to that young woman. Only you know that and that is a matter for you and your conscience, it is not a matter for censorship by any paternalistic government or governing body.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
jeffhansenSun, 15 Feb 2009, 10:04 pm
Don't forget Dr In The
Don't forget Dr In The House opens Feb 27th at Melville. :)
93304565
www.meltheco.org.au
Walter PlingeTue, 17 Feb 2009, 02:54 pm
You wot?
This misses the point utterly. It is also defamatory of schoolchildren and should be removed immediately ;)
Peta-mareeTue, 17 Feb 2009, 05:29 pm
This should help you
What is defamation?
http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/Defamation/DefamationLawsAfterJan06.asp
For a defamation action to succeed, the person complaining of the defamation (the plaintiff) has to prove three things:
that the communication has been published to a third person
that the communication identifies (or is about) the plaintiff; and
that the communication is defamatory.
This should help you:
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
"Defamation is the publication of words or images to a person that damages the reputation of another ['slander' if spoken words, 'libel' if written words or images]. A defamatory statement is one that is likely to cause ordinary, reasonable people to think less of the person about whom the words or images are published. An inference that casts a defamatory imputation is enough to bring an action."
2006 laws were revised
Federal Laws:
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Grounds of unlawful discrimination
Race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.
Other unlawful conduct
Racial hatred
Areas covered
provision of goods and services covered in this area
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Grounds of unlawful discrimination
Sex, marital status, pregnancy, family responsibility (dismissal only).
Other unlawful conduct
Sexual harassment
Areas covered
goods, services and facilities; covered in this area
Look up each state Anti Discrimination Act
Walter PlingeWed, 18 Feb 2009, 11:02 am
Perhaps. Yes. It may mean
Perhaps. Yes. It may mean all those things. Defamation may also mean that the truth cuts much to close in those many cases where it's being sighted.