Deleted Posts - Page 2

Superman · 10-14-2002, 09:14 AM

I am mindful of legal issues, but Wayne knows my position on censorship here. For three years I have advocated a mostly 'hands off' approach on the part of moderators. I think the 'magic' of this board depends on this freedom. I think these decisions should be made by peers (in this case, Pelicanheads), and I notice that we are excellent at it. Troublemakers are chased out of this place quickly and firmly by the group. It's beautiful, sociologically speaking.

But there's another reason. In my professional world, consistency is often a very difficult goal to achieve, but necessary from a legal perspective. If I censor nothing, and someone accuses me of improperly refusing to censor, my response is "Your Honor, these are simply the opinions of Pelicanheads, in a community discussion that happens to be accessible to the public....like a discussion in a supermarket only on a broader scale. I do not edit the conversation, nor do I manipulate or coerce it." But if I am responding to that same criticism and it can be shown that I do in fact manipulate or censor the discussion, then I have to justify why I chose to NOT censor one discussion while deciding affirmatively to censor another. It's of of those slippery slopes. Just don't get on these kinds of slippery slopes, I say.

But, this is not Jim's sandbox. It is Wayne's sandbox.

Typical Fish · Typical Fish's Garage

You know, I have to ask; does that thing have a 2nd alternator?

john_colasante · 10-14-2002, 09:29 AM

reed930, you are right on.

RJ Gilliam · 10-14-2002, 09:45 AM

I will give you my opinion on this matter and the car... I know I will get in trouble for this and may subject myself to legal action but I need to be heard....

Here goes

*****COMMENTS DELETED BY MODERATOR******

LOL......

island911 · 10-14-2002, 10:00 AM

Yeah RJ; I saw what you wrote. Very interesting. Really makes you think.
Whatever you do though,don't go and repeat *that* on the BMW Forums. . . .you know Wayne wants our help over there.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

actually I think RJ should be kicked out of the club for what he wrote. My gawd man, what were you thinking? And to involve your wife and pets like that....disgusting!

RJ Gilliam · 10-14-2002, 10:06 AM

Island thanks for the comments, I will take your advice...

NOSTATIC: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT YOU AND YOUR ****DELETED BY MODERATOR*****

lmao....

island911 · 10-14-2002, 10:08 AM

Ya-ya nostatic, but it *is* legal in at least a dozen countries.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

you gotta point. Want to buy a video of it?

Thomas Owen · 10-14-2002, 10:12 AM

I still want to know how you get out....

island911 · 10-14-2002, 10:13 AM

Hmmm, not sure. Does it have the out-takes? . . .or have they been DELETED !?

RJ Gilliam · 10-14-2002, 10:15 AM

LMAO @ island and nostatic....

thanks I needed that..

Video clips available at: ***DELETED BY MODERATOR**

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

the out-takes are there, but there is 18 minutes of silence in the middle. And that comes right after footage of a grassy knoll.

Uh oh...

island911 · 10-14-2002, 10:21 AM

"grassy knoll" .. .ha, is that what you kids call it, these days.

Overpaid Slacker · 10-14-2002, 10:21 AM

Nostatic made a comment "But the only person here with any real legal exposure is Wayne"
If I was less lazy, I'd go back and find it, but someone recently posted a link to an article about a suit by Pets Warehouse (or similar name) against not only the host/moderator of a board, but the persons that posted the "offensive", "libelous" material on such board. So any post could be a hook for a law suit. Not that you'd be liable, but bear in mind that legal exposure vis-a-vis liability is one thing, but exposure to legal costs (ie having to secure counsel and go through the hoops of getting the court to say that you're not liable) is another, and it's still expensive. A lot of exonerated defendants are bankrupt.

Although Superman makes a good point, the fact that editing is ad hoc doesn't result in some kind of "automatic" liability. This is true even if the interference appears to be inconsistent, or -- the worst sin known to pop culture -- hypocritical. Wayne can fully explain and justify selective editing/interference/removal (pornography vs. vulgarity vs. politics vs. personal threats etc...) however, by the time he'd have to explain any distinctions, he'd already be being sued, so it's not that different a position to be in (he's *already* laying out the ducats for the defense -- see above), even assuming the explanation is reasonable.

So sterilize content completely or keep it reasonable. I'd incline to reasonability; therefore I'm still curious to hear from the grown-ups why the thread was deleted in the first place.

If in fact the thread had to be pulled due to the fact that some completely craven jackass threatened litigation because he didn't have the stones to come into this forum and debate/respond or even face the people who "insulted" -- or merely disagreed with -- him, then he can kiss my freckled a$$ and slink back to the circus in that car.

The foregoing opinions are solely my own and not to be attributed to any other person, living or dead, whether I bear resemblence to such person or not.

JP

pbs911 · pbs911's Garage

Quote:

But the only person here with any real legal exposure is Wayne.

Not exactly correct. Generally, anyone who diseminates a defamitory statement to the public is liable for damages to a persons reputation if the statment is proven to be untrue. The statements are evaluated at different standards depending on the entity/ individual against whom the statement is made. Surely everyone here has heard of the National Enquirer being sued for millions, etc.

Unfortunatly, Wayne would just have the deep pockets and may possibly be held accountable if he knew the statements were untrue and continued to all the post to remain. I agree with Wayne's decision if he has cause for concern. Such statments have the possibility of affecting him business wise, personally and financially.

Disclaimer: The foregoing is not considered legal advise and persons with any concerns should seek a qualified attorney.

JackT · 10-14-2002, 10:28 AM

and we do not have to play if we do not like his rules. There are other boards so we have an option if we need our fix each day. Apparently Wayne must feel this way since we have not heard from him on this.

old_skul · 10-14-2002, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
"grassy knoll" .. .ha, is that what you kids call it, these days.

Uh, anyway....I'm pretty consistent in what I moderate. I have never run across a circumstance that required the removal of a thread. I have banned one obvious flaming off-topic troll who was spouting profanity like a sailor. And I've moved many threads to the offtopic forums.

But if someone asked to have a thread deleted that contained information about their property and made fun of it, out it would go.

While Pelican Parts would probably win a court case in which it were sued for libel or defamation of character in the forums, it would be detrimental to the business, and therefore the community. Ergo, as a "moderator" doing what is best for the community, that thread would be toast. I stand behind whoever killed it. It was the right thing to do, unfortunately. Sometimes censorship takes on the guise of CYA.

Jay Auskin · 10-14-2002, 11:47 AM

I should have researched more on this forum.

...I hope I can get my bid retracted.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

but Paul, we the users are "anonymous", and hence more difficult to prosecute (yeah, I know we aren't really, but you get the idea). Wayne is knowingly and willingly providing this forum, and hence facilitates the process. He's the easily identifiable target.

Now back to that grassy knoll...