Key Publishing should be pleased….

Re 10

Mercurius

You might add the obvious caveat that any comment that might attract the attention of Messrs. Sue, Grabbit & Runne should be truthful and without invention.

The new Act is indeed a welcome change. But it is worth noting that the defence tactic of saying that the published words were honest opinion does seem to require that this statement of opinion also contain some information on the facts upon which this opinion was based. But a lot of what is offered as ‘fact’ on this and other fora are often little more than opinion and would be unlikely to survive hostile cross-examination.

The biggest step forward (in my opinion) is the need to prove that a published statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. And in the case of a statement made against a company or organisation, it does not cause “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause that body serious financial loss.

I think it works as is, so why bother making it less lenient, I’ ban that Jim chappie though :stupid:

In principle your last sentence has appeal but in practice I am not sure how well it would work. I think the umpire/referee system is the best of an imperfect selection and as in sport not every decision will be right and many will be dissatisfied with the judgement.

David, I didn’t write that they All were ! But, even by liberal interpretation, it appears that one or two are too eager to close down a subject. I look for what could have caused offence and fail to see it.

Perhaps a more benign approach is needed. Point out the offence/s and invite the commentator to remove the subject. If that falls on stony ground, ask the other contributors to the subject whether they would prefer to see the subject withdrawn – a kind of straw poll.

This method has at least the merit of introducing an element of consultation and democracy.

I am not sure that the moderators are ‘trigger happy’ in their drive towards the restriction of freedom of speech and expression !

I think the situation is that forum members need to a degree to self regulate themselves and to realise that to defend a site like this
from the people out there that resort to legal action is costly. I believe in the freedom of expression – I also believe that if your prepared
to say something you need to be able to defend that yourself .

It won’t stop some web managers still being touchy feely on subjects they feel awkward with.

Indeed. The implications are being discussed right now.

It does seem to give the website operator some protection from mischievous litigants

Moggy
Moderator

From my recollection of the details when the Bill was originally debated – eminently sensible.

Looks pretty sensible to me (not having read the full article)