The last thing we all need

With apologies in advance because the last thing we need is more discussion on this topic but I think the following article should be required reading for the few members that raise this topic on a regular basis:

Tracy Frazier's article, You Read What About Me on the Internet?!: Anonymous Online Libel, THE LEGALITY, Feb. 26, 2009, http://www.thelegality.com/archives/125

Everyone else, 27 new audition and production notices added to the site this week, ten blog posts, four reviews and lots more interesting theatre related things than this post!

Regards
Grant 

Hi Grant

Thanks for putting the article up, it's very interesting reading, however, for me, it doesn't answer the main questions, they are:

• Why allow anonymous postings?

• What is the point of anonymous postings?

Certainly for those in any community that get off (take pleasure) in malicious, unfounded gossip (and lets be real here), lies, there's an obvious benefit, but for those who find such things distasteful and unneccessary, there is hurt and more often than not, unwarranted damage to reputations.

What seems to be brought up (in defence) with monotonous regularity, is, the admittedly vital concept of free speech. Like most people, I would absolutely defend anybody's right to practice that, however if someone chooses to say something incorrect about me, lie, or even defame me, should I not have recourse to correct the issue?

It appears to be one of those cases where the law crawls up its own backside, as the learned legal eagles ponder the more esoteric threads of the dilemma and, like so much of our Westminster-based legal system, the victim is deemed of little or no consequence.

By all means, form and freely state your opinion, but if your viewpoint is formed from hearsay, minimal facts, guesswork and even malice, then of course you will want to hide. Which must be a relief to some, as I'm the sort of person who will confront, effortlessly and, metaphorically speaking of course, "rip your fucking lungs out" - if malice is behind it all.

It needs mentioning that there is a difference between Nom de Plumes, such as Peter Nettleton and his Stinger persona, there's no attempt at disguise, or hiding - if someone disagrees with his views, they're able to contact him, no one could have any realistic objections to the system.

Young Daniel deserves full credit for having the courage to state his opinions under his own name, people may not always agree with his opinions, but they are honest, although perhaps more illuminating than he would wish. And here young man, let us tackle your homo eroticism statement.

It made me laugh - I'm secure and comfortable enough with my sexuality (and that of others), to understand the earnest young uni student behind the chosen words. However you've probably realised now, that you've offended a number of people in the theatre community, admittedly, I suspect, unintentionally, but nevertheless, I hope it's a lesson well learnt, we all make mistakes that we cringe over for years to come.

And that segues into reinforcing my point on anonymous posters, I have no recourse to challenge their statements, that is an injustice.

Kind regards

Greg Ross

Minister for Good Times

People like myself, Na, Greg Ross, Stinger, Danny K, and a few others who regularly stick their necks out and make some noise about this, that or the other are going to attract a few predators. It is the nature of the beast and the business. Just look at the lynchings that more notables regularly take, deserved or not. Accept it as a part of being noticed.

It is an unavoidable part of our society and in some sense, humanity in general. We have been given the faculties to feel joy, shame, envy, jealousy, desire, anger, hatred by what-ever higher power you take note of. How we put those 'gifts' to use is a matter of personal choice and given the number of people in the world, and the pressures of society, you are going to find every possible use of these emotional aspects, and more often against those who make themselves targets. Why shoot someone you can't see?

I find it is a real case of no-news is good-news. For every Troll taunting you, there are likely to be many more who general accept, appreciate or enjoy what you have to say but do not feel the need to comment or 'stick their neck out' also. Let's face it, I myself have enjoyed certain posts, voted them up, yet have not added comment as I did not see the need. Posting something along the lines of "I AGREE!" and nothing else doesn't seem right, to me.

In addition, I find that Trolls have either of two agendas, to randomly and deliberately sow disruption or the goad a specific individual to an emotional reaction for a percieved jealous slight. Unless there is some thought given to the comment that can be backed up with intellectual perception, then it is simply an emotional outburst, with which we can do little with anyway, and to be ignored.

Trolling is not restricted to unregistered and anonymous posters however and a number of registered and self-identified posters (and well known at that) regularly engage in mud-slinging matches. Sometimes there is a measure of intellectual debate between them. Thankfully, this is contained within the confines of their own arguments and we can see that it is simply a clash of personalities rather than Tolling per-se.

I guess what I am saying is that if you are the type of person who will make a stand, speak up, stick-your-neck-out, then you have to anticipate that someone is going to take a shot at you. Most of it will be "personal opinion" type stuff which will go under the radar of such legal applications of Libel which focuses on Factual Defamatory Statements. That is the stuff we will just have to live with.

There you have it. My personal feelings on Trolls and Trolling. Take it or leave it, or Troll it.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

SN Profile

Greg Ross wrote:
> Why allow anonymous postings?

As others have indicated, this question has been asked and answered several times over the last few years.

Perhaps the following article should also be compulsory reading:

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Registration only provides a reasonable assurance that any posts by the same registered member probably originated from the same person - although there have been embarassing exceptions where people sharing the same computer have inadvertently posted using someone else's registration details.

In itself, registration tells you nothing about who a person is. Or whether, with deference to the article above, they are a person at all.

For all I know, Greg Ross may be a dog.

> if someone chooses to say something incorrect about me, lie,
> or even defame me, should I not have recourse to correct the issue?

Several courses of action are available to you:

• provide your own corrections
• watch as others provide their own corrections
• complain and ask for the content to be removed
• pursue action for defamation
• do nothing
  

It makes no difference whether a post is from a registered member or an anonymous user, all four options remain open to you. What other recourse could you hope for?

As the article mentioned in an earlier post makes it clear:

"...courts have held that given the nature of online forums, online comments cannot be taken as seriously as those made in real life or in the media."

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

Well, I suspect you're closer than you think Grant - like a dog with a bone would be rather appropriate and Daniel might suggest I'm more of a poodle than a German Shepherd!

Of course, regardless of where past courts have gone, in terms of definition, online forums are increasingly being regarded as a form of media. Indeed, if one considers the abysmal state The West Australian newspaper was dragged into by its immediate past editor, online forums are probably just as legitimate as daily newspapers.

You are correct in detailing the current four courses of action available, however may I suggest a different approach to the issue, one that I would certainly put my paw mark to.

Subscribers / members are only able to register with a proven name and address, utilising contact details etc, that are confirmed by another medium - eg: post. When that process has happened, the member can make any post they want, although it must be in their confirmed name, or a Nom de Plume, providing there was an open-register of people and their pen names.

How could anybody complain? They would be free to say what they liked.

Cheers

Greg

Greg Ross

Minister for Good Times

George Megalogenis (senior writer with The Australian), has an excellent article on blogs and toxic posters in the latest issue of The Walkley. (pg 5). There is also a wonderful accompanying cartoon by Jon Kudelka (The Australian). I would attach it if I could, but the system is beyond my meagre capabilities.

Suffice to say, in part, the caption under the cartoon reads:

'The internet is God's gift to the bully..."

www.alliance.org.au will take you through to the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance site.

Cheers

Greg Ross

Minister for Good Times