MOULIN BLUES!!!!!!

Hi Anna

Thanks for the response.

Miss Sherman wrote:
> 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'm not in any doubt about the law, it's how it is exercised that concerns me. I suspect you might agree that knowing the law and having to exercise professional judgement are not the same thing. Would you be prepared to stake your livelihood and reputation on your judgement of whether a post constitutes "publication of legitimate concerns" or "deliberate public attacks on a person's credibility"? Which side would the axe fall? How's your professional indemnity cover? Do you have time to wade through a couple of dozen posts per day? If you're prepared to do it for free, maybe I have a job for you.

;-)

> 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.

The post has been removed in accordance with your request.

http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=21&i=1314&t=1272

> 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.

Thank you very much.

> 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?

There are more than 50 posts in this thread and more than 21,000 messages across the website. Your post came three and a half months after the one that you have now requested should be removed. If some one is requesting that defamatory material be removed I don't think it is too much to ask that they specify precisely what they want removed. You explanation regarding why it should be removed is a little more than I would usually expect. I usually ask people to state whether they regard it as defamatory, unauthorised or illegal.

> 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?

Thanks very much for the suggestion. You'll notice that the Disclaimer page has been updated very much along the lines of your suggestion.

> 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.

While I always appreciate an opportunity to revisit and review our position on this matter, I'm afraid I'll stand by my comments that your earlier post was so vague that, I had no idea whether you were referring to a specific single post, a number of posts or the whole entire discussion. Your subsequent message has provided me with just the detail I needed in order to act on your particular concerns. Thank you.

> 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.

Your request was the first received in the three and a half months since the posting you refer to and the post was removed within a matter of hours. I've also updated the Disclaimer page to hopefully more readily draw people's attention to an appropriate course of action.

I can't promise that there will always be as timely a removal as has occured in this case (i'm at home this afternoon with a sick wife and child) but the systems we have in place can and do work.

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]