MOULIN BLUES!!!!!!

Hi Grant,

Thank you - your summary and viewpoint is much appreciated, and has included plenty of food for thought for me, and I'm sure for other watchful eyes out there. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I concur that at this stage veracity and/or accuracy are not stand-alone grounds for establishing defamation, and I agree with your view that the intent of the law is not to discourage people from publishing their feelings that things are awry. However the common law tests of whether material is or is not defamatory (whether it is calculated to engender hatred, contempt or ridicule of the plaintiff, whether it may cause right-thinking individuals to lower their estimation of the plaintiff, and whether it may cause people to shun or avoid the plaintiff) suggest a distinction between publication of legitimate concerns in a balanced manner, and deliberate public attacks on a person's credibility.

I firmly believe Tacky's post on July 24th falls into the latter category. It refers to a perceived right to dampen the company's reputation, which suggests that is the exact intent of the publication. It suggests the International Arts Company and the person who operates it conduct themselves "illegally". It publicly charges Trevor Patient with being someone who "wants money and is willing to knock anyone over to get it", and later describes him as someone who "uses you". It's published in a forum visited by a large number of those interested in community performing arts - exactly the group of people on whom Trevor is dependent upon for support and trust. It has been published on this site now for three and a half months, and I would like to see it removed permanently. I'll send an email shortly to request its removal.

I too will be interested in following the outcome of the possible shake-up of dafamation law nationally proposed by the states and territories, though from the details available to the public so far it does not appear that an individual's right to sue for defamation will be greatly affected other than having the potential pay-out figure capped.

And I extend my unqualified apologies to you and to anyone else who may have felt threatened by my previous posts; that was never my intention. I note your suggestion to use the contact email to request removal of offending posts. I also note the guidelines set down on the disclaimer page of this website and can understand the personal responsibilty model espoused by the owners and organisers of the website.

However I also note that the definition of republication, and assignation of responsibility to a publishing website is not yet crystal clear and is being defined slowly and by degrees through case law. Having responded to my post, it's clear that you have read it, and I also believe it didn't require any second guessing to conclude that I view the material as defamatory. If your suggestion involves merely sending an email to state my belief and request removal, why not already do that based on my previous post? Is a post that you've already responded to in detail not notification?

I'm sure that gets us into foggy area again in terms of your responsibilities as administrator, and would be worth more discussion - though I'd at least like to see an area of the site that tells people what to do just as you have in your post. I may have missed something, but I couldn't find anywhere on the site that has a suggestion to the effect of: "if you believe illegal, unauthorised or illegal information has been published on this site, please email us here". Under the personal responsibility model, you've advised people who post what their responsibilities are, but as someone who was responding to a post that in my view breached your guidelines, I believed using the forum would have a similar effect, and had no instruction to refer to that suggested otherwise (please point it out to me if it exists other than in your post here). Am happy to send the email as well, but perhaps that needs to be the suggested recourse in these circumstances as part of the website's Disclaimer page?

So I reiterate: I was not posing threats, but attempting to open discussion on whether it's ever appropriate for the webmaster to step in. And I tend to resent accusations of being vague and ill-informed, though I recognise your right to publish them. As someone who does understand my responsibilities in regard to defamation, copyright and illegal material, and also understands the permanence of web message boards, my posts do not necessarily include the full detail of my opinion. Talk to me in person, however, and I believe though we may have different views on some subjects, you would find I am better informed than you suggest.

The bottom line from my perspective, though it may have seemed otherwise, is that the material published by Tacky was insulting at the least, and my opinion defamatory. I have it on good advice in this scenario that a court would probably hold the same view. It has been read by people who know Trevor, including parents of kids in his last show, and Trevor and those around him believe it has resulted in damage to his personal and professional reputation, and it has certainly caused distress for him and some of the people who work with him. However all the debate about defamation law, while valid and constructive from a big picture perspective, does not address the real problem: nobody wants to sue anyone here (who here thinks Tacky is a goldmine?), we just want one of two things: either a retraction and/or apology from Tacky or removal of the post. Given we've waited around for three months for Tacky to respond again, I think the former is unlikely.

I too believe this area requires further debate, and I respect the views expressed in your post - I also happen to agree with many of them, though I believe we have applied the same concepts differently. I support the forthright and vigorous expression this kind of an online community encourages. However I don't believe a valid complaint about the legality of the content of one of the posts should be written off as stifling or as censorship.

I enjoy the dialogue though.

Thanks once again for weighing in.

Cheers
Anna