MOULIN BLUES!!!!!!

Hi Anna

Miss Sherman wrote:
> You're right, "cj", or "rdbadger" - two pseudonyms I'm
> incapable of deciphering - there are no internet police. And
> people should post with passion. However they should also
> post with accuracy.

I believe veracity or accuracy isn't (yet) an adequate legal defence against a libel suit in every australian jurisdiction.

> Just because someone feels there is
> something awry does not necessarily mean they have the right
> to publish it,

Sadly, you're right. The notion of freedom of speech is something largely foreign to our laws and is certainly not a constitutional right as is the case in some countries.

On the other hand, I don't think the law seeks to discourage people from publishing their feelings that something is awry.

> Internet posts are considered written published material
> under federal law - so the same rules regarding libel apply
> as would to a paper newsletter, journal article or news item.
>
> And the reason we have laws prohibiting libel in this
> country, that at least allow the complainant to pursue
> action, is because it can be a legitimate cause of business
> and personal losses to an individual or organisation.

It will be interesting to see whether the recent suggested amendments that would prevent corporations from seeking redress via libel actions get through parliament.

> So when the parents of one of the new cast members of an
> International Arts Company production gets on the web, goes
> to Google or Looksmart or this ITA website, types in "Trevor
> Patient", and hits search, the material they find should not
> include unfounded and libellous statements...whether or not
> they are made in the name of passion.

Granted, but whether or not the statements are unfounded or libellous is something that I believe would have to be determined in a court of law.

Quite apart from any alllegedly libellous statements, the material found in your hypothetical search might well contain valid concerns and points of view that a court may not consider constitute libel.

> The link between this
> material being available for public viewing, regardless of
> its accuracy, and damage to the personal and professional
> reputation of both Trevor and his company (and possible
> business losses as a result) is a fairly obvious one to make
> in this scenario.

Once again, something that I believe would have to be proved and decided in court.

> Therefore I would urge the webmasters of this site to
> consider removing posts that contain frankly libellous
> material - I'm not talking about being Big Brother

Oh, but you are.

> (Orwellian, not Channel Tennian), and I'm not talking about
> jokes or sarcasm or posts that might be a bit risque or push
> the boundaries a little - I'm talking about responsible
> management of a site and filtering out the sneaky and cheeky
> from the downright unlawful and damaging. I'm simply
> pointing out the exposure the webmasters risk by allowing
> these types of posts to be freely uncovered using common web
> search tools.

I don't think you're pointing out the risks, I think you're making vague threats about consequences.

This site is built on a model of personal responsibility. What people cause to be published is their responsibility.

> I'd be very keen to hear from the webmasters either on this
> board or via email: whether or not they have obtained legal
> advice about these types of scenarios; what their position is
> on libellous material appearing on their site; what their
> response is to hearing that this material appears as part of
> a garden-variety web search performed on one individual's name.

I think you'll find that our position is entirely in keeping with current case law. As a responsible netizen, if you or anyone else should come across material on this site that you feel is illegal, libellous or an infringement of copyright or trademark then you should write to the contact address provided on every page of the site requesting that the information be removed. Please provide precise details of what you wish to have removed and your reasons for requesting removal. The material will be removed at the earliest opportunity.

I may administer this website, but I do not publish the views of others nor do I read everything that is posted here. Even for the posts that I do read, I am not in a position to second guess what any individual may or may not consider to be libel or whether the court will share that point of view. As administrator, if I am notified that someone regards something posted here as libellous, it then becomes my responsibility to take it down. If I refuse then either I or the ITA may well be held responsible for continuing to publish what others have caused to be posted on these unmoderated message boards.

This site is certainly not intended to be a forum in which people can libel each other with any degree of impunity. It clearly provides a significant portion of the theatre community with a vital outlet for their views and feelings. Discussion will occasionally be very robust and plenty of forthright views will be expressed, but the very significant difference between these mesage boards and the paper newsletters, journal articles or news items you referred to earlier is that everyone has a right of reply here.

This site plays an important role in drawing the attention of the parents of new cast members that you mentioned to the fact that there is concern in the community at the way in which some companies may be taking advantage of the aspirations of performers and perhaps lining their own pockets at the expense of volunteers.

I resent and will continue to strenuously resist attempts like yours to censor and stifle discussion on this forum through vague and ill-informed threats. If you have legitimate concerns then point out the specific instances, provide your reasons and I will remove the material.

Cheers
Grant

Thou infectious rude-growing lewdster!

[%sig%]