MOULIN BLUES!!!!!!

Hello Anna and Grant


While understanding your concerns about the defamatory post, Anna, I believe Grant acted very responsibly not to jump the gun until you were able to be extremely specific. And I notice that, having followed that more cautious path, you both then came to agreement about what the problem was and he was very prompt in solving it. Both sides have now contributed to the wording of a procedure to follow in future. Excellent.


But here's a tricky question for you both...what do you think should be done about this post of yours, Anna...?

http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=21&i=1333&t=1272

...which virtually reproduces the very material you just had erased? (along with your views about said material).


My view is it should probably be allowed to stand, because the offending material is tempered by your opposing argument....but then, wasn't the now-deleted post tempered by many opposing arguments (including Anna's reply) anyway?

So if we're going to agree that, regardless of the evidence of counterargument, we still need to remove the libelous posts, do we now need to edit the arguments that come later in the thread? There are now several 'orphaned' counterarguments that suddenly have no argument to counter...they no longer seem to serve any purpose; should they too be deleted?


Also, to relate to a personal experience: I have been called some things on this very website which could have been considered similarly damaging to my professional reputation...had anyone believed them. As it turned out, many respected voices gave strong counterargument and showed the detractor to be a bit of a dickhead, thus saving my professional standing from substantial damage. Phew.
But was this not also the case here? Many respected points of view took issue with the detractor, and in the process pointed him/her out to be a similar dickhead. With the wind thus thoroughly knocked out of his/her sails, can the offending opinion still in any seriousness be considered as a potentially damaging threat..?


I'm not taking any particular side here, but I find the concept interesting. As far as the issue goes, I agree that the offensive and unsubstantiated libel obviously ought to be dismissed (therefore it makes little difference in my view whether it was deleted or not), but there are still posts here that argue convincingly (and legally) either for or against the victim of the now-removed defamation, and they continue to be my main reference when forming an opinion of him.
I think it's very useful to take into consideration people's opinions...but I'm well aware that they are only opinions. I'd like to hear Trevor's point of view.

Cheers,
Craig