Thread for arguments with or about moderation

[Cam Mott]

Hi Cam, we've covered this in another thread. If the person disseminating the information is not claiming that it's true, it's not libel. But if they did claim it's true, it can be.

Hi Emily.  I guess I just disagree from what is public so far, it is a distinction without a difference imo.

[Emily]

Hi Cam, we've covered this in another thread. If the person disseminating the information is not claiming that it's true, it's not libel. But if they did claim it's true, it can be.

Hi Emily.  I guess I just disagree from what is public so far, it is a distinction without a difference imo.

Well, one difference the distinction makes is whether it's legally actionable.

[Cam Mott]

Hi Cam, we've covered this in another thread. If the person disseminating the information is not claiming that it's true, it's not libel. But if they did claim it's true, it can be.

Hi Emily.  I guess I just disagree from what is public so far, it is a distinction without a difference imo.

Well, one difference the distinction makes is whether it's legally actionable.

Against anyone but the original un-named source.

[Emily]

Hi Cam, we've covered this in another thread. If the person disseminating the information is not claiming that it's true, it's not libel. But if they did claim it's true, it can be.

Hi Emily.  I guess I just disagree from what is public so far, it is a distinction without a difference imo.

Well, one difference the distinction makes is whether it's legally actionable.

Against anyone but the original un-named source.

"Keep in mind that the republication of someone else's defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source. For example, if you quote a witness to a traffic accident who says the driver was drunk when he ran the red light and it turns out the driver wasn't drunk and he had a green light, you can't hide behind the fact that you were merely republishing the witness' statement (which would likely be defamatory). "
-http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/defamation

"That is because under the “republication” rule, the person who repeats a defamatory statement (e.g., a newspaper) adopts the statement and is as liable as the person who originally made the statement.  Thus, except where a privilege applies (as discussed below), the law generally affords no protection for those who merely repeat what someone else said."
-http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiVlNeWmf7MAhXC5iYKHaVDA_oQFghQMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nacua.org%2Fnacualert%2Fmemberversion%2Femploymentrefs%2Fclothier_01c.doc&usg=AFQjCNH9Nz0HMv0-kYT17NCtCYINYSChKA&sig2=n-UVnSwaovw84ZPoFtEZaA&bvm=bv.123325700,d.eWE

"You can defame a person by repeating words spoken by someone else, for example an interviewee. It is no defence to claim that you were only quoting someone else. If you write something defamatory, you could be taken to court, along with your editor, your publisher and printer or your broadcasting authority, the person who said the words in the first place ... even the newspaper seller."
-http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_69.htm

[Cam Mott]

I not supposed to discuss it or I'd say wouldn't everyone who reshared the PMs be guilty regardless then.

[Emily]

I not supposed to discuss it or I'd say wouldn't everyone who reshared the PMs be guilty regardless then.

   Cam, I feel like we're going in circles.

For a finding of defamation, the defendant must have spread false information that damages a reputation.

So,
1. If you spread false information that damages a reputation, whether or not you are the original source and whether or not you name the original source, you are liable.
2. If you repeat false information, but specify or imply that it's false, it won't damage a reputation, so you won't be liable.

So,
1. If A told B a false, damaging story about X, then A is liable for defamation.
2. If B repeats the story to C, implying that it's true, then person B is liable for defamation.
3. If C tells D that B told a false story about X, then C is not liable for defamation, as C is not telling a false story about X but is telling a true story about B.

So, if I tell MarcellaHasDoucheyFeet that Douchepool is not actually a douche, then Douchepool can sue me for ruining his douchey reputation.
Then, if MarcellaHasDoucheyFeet tells Gigantic Douche Coupe that Douchepool is not actually a douche, then Douchepool can sue MarcellaHasDoucheyFeet for further ruining his douchey reputation.
Then, if Gigantic Douche Coupe tells the mods that MarcellaHasDoucheyFeet has been spreading the false rumor that Douchepool is not actually a douche, Gigantic Douche Coupe is telling the truth and can not be sued.

[Niko]

I not supposed to discuss it or I'd say wouldn't everyone who reshared the PMs be guilty regardless then.

   Cam, I feel like we're going in circles.

lol

[Cam Mott]

   Cam, I feel like we're going in circles.

Emily, I agree. Probably because we don't have enough information, just claims.

Speaking of claims:

- Has anyone found the alleged post of a "public letter encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement" by Val Johnson-Howe?

- The modlog entry of the rule violation that caused The Cincinnati Kid's suspension, what was the violation?

Thanks.

[Ang Jones]

[quote author=Emily link=topic=23872.msg577985#msg577985 date=1464053460

-The only woman posting here that I can think of off the top of my head who is completely open about her identity is Debbie KL. Whether women's discomfort with openly identifying themselves on an open board is validated by stats or not, it's real discomfort based on the many horror stories we hear on a regular basis.
[/quote]

And me! I post under the same - my own - name here, on FB, Brian's MB and so on. I even post rarely on BBB - as Angela since I forgot my password and couldn't use Ang Jones as it was already registered.

I haven't been following all of this because of being away at BW shows but I think we should refrain from getting too personal or at least perhaps write privately to each other first. It is easy for bad feelings to be blown out of proportion. We're all here through love of the music. We're bound to disagree, we have strong opinions but in my experience we all clap together and on time when we hear 'Surfin' is the only life, the only way for me now, surf....'

Love and mercy as the man says!

[Robbie Mac]

   Cam, I feel like we're going in circles.

Emily, I agree. Probably because we don't have enough information, just claims.

Speaking of claims:

- Has anyone found the alleged post of a "public letter encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement" by Val Johnson-Howe?

- The modlog entry of the rule violation that caused The Cincinnati Kid's suspension?

Thanks.

Cam, you and fildelaplage crossposted the post from Val in question. My response pinted out the quotes that could be interpeted as threats.

[Robbie Mac]

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

[Cam Mott]

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

Andy. You are welcome to your opinions about what is threatening, I don't share them. At all. 

Still, with all of the selective concern over potential libel, no where in that "public letter" is Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement". Is there any such public letter from Val? Does anyone know of such a letter?

[Robbie Mac]

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

Andy. You are welcome to your opinions about what is threatening, I don't share them. At all. 

Still, with all of the selective concern over potential libel, no where in that "public letter" is Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement". Is there any such public letter from Val? Does anyone know of such a letter?

That IS the letter, Mr. Mott.

[Cam Mott]

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

Andy. You are welcome to your opinions about what is threatening, I don't share them. At all. 

Still, with all of the selective concern over potential libel, no where in that "public letter" is Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement". Is there any such public letter from Val? Does anyone know of such a letter?

That IS the letter, Mr. Mott.

If so, Mr. Botwin than it IS false that in the letter Val is "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement".  I'm sure you join me in encouraging an apology to Val.

[Mr. Verlander]

All along, I thought that this thread was about problems dealing with moderation on this board. Not about what goes on at other boards.

[The Shift]

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

Andy. You are welcome to your opinions about what is threatening, I don't share them. At all. 

Still, with all of the selective concern over potential libel, no where in that "public letter" is Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement". Is there any such public letter from Val? Does anyone know of such a letter?

That IS the letter, Mr. Mott.

If so, Mr. Botwin than it IS false that in the letter Val is "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement".  I'm sure you join me in encouraging an apology to Val.

Having read this (yet) again, I'm with Cam: at no stage is there any threat of legal action from Val. She's just sticking up for the uk fans who were deprived of a tour through management ineptitude, and suggesting they might like to make some gesture of recompense.

Val's getting a rough ride here for no reason and I really do think that the mods ought to be doing something to heal cross board diplomatic relations.

But sadly I suspect that won't happen.

[Robbie Mac]

You guys are acting like the fans were left high and dry. The tickets were already refunded. The letter was demanding extra stuff with a tone that, as SMILEBrian points out, a litigious person would be envious of.

[Robbie Mac]

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

Andy. You are welcome to your opinions about what is threatening, I don't share them. At all. 

Still, with all of the selective concern over potential libel, no where in that "public letter" is Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement". Is there any such public letter from Val? Does anyone know of such a letter?

That IS the letter, Mr. Mott.

If so, Mr. Botwin than it IS false that in the letter Val is "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement".  I'm sure you join me in encouraging an apology to Val.

Having read this (yet) again, I'm with Cam: at no stage is there any threat of legal action from Val. She's just sticking up for the uk fans who were deprived of a tour through management ineptitude, and suggesting they might like to make some gesture of recompense.

Val's getting a rough ride here for no reason and I really do think that the mods ought to be doing something to heal cross board diplomatic relations.

But sadly I suspect that won't happen.

Why should they when people on BBB sh*t on Smiley's mods? If anyone is truly interested in harmonious relations between boards, BBB would offer Craig and Billy the same apoligies that BBB members are demanding that Val receive.

I won't hold my breath. This is a thread where people are trying to bully Craig into resigning.

[The Shift]

Thing is, some if the same folk who're shitting on BBB over here about what they're saying on there are the same ones who moaned about discussions taking place over there about over here. And now we're referring on here to what went down over there regarding discussing stuff that was happening on here? Talk about double standards!

[Cam Mott]

You guys are acting like the fans were left high and dry. The tickets were already refunded. The letter was demanding extra stuff with a tone that, as SMILEBrian points out, a litigious person would be envious of.

The booking fees were not refunded, is what I believe Val pointed out in her letter. In spite of your (and SMILE-Brian's) irrelevant opinions, Val was not "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement".

[Robbie Mac]

You guys are acting like the fans were left high and dry. The tickets were already refunded. The letter was demanding extra stuff with a tone that, as SMILEBrian points out, a litigious person would be envious of.

The booking fees were not refunded, is what I believe Val pointed out in her letter. In spite of your (and SMILE-Brian's) irrelevant opinions, Val was not "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement".

Booking fees for what, Mr. Mott?

[Cam Mott]

Booking fees for what, Mr. Mott?

Not for "traveling expenses".  Fees for booking "from the respective venues" for the concert they couldn't attend through no fault of their own. Didn't you read it, Mr. Botwin?  And what does it have to do with the false claim "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement"?

[Robbie Mac]

The implication is there.

[Cam Mott]

The implication is there.

No. Not at all.

[Cam Mott]

Thing is, some if the same folk who're shitting on BBB over here about what they're saying on there are the same ones who moaned about discussions taking place over there about over here. And now we're referring on here to what went down over there regarding discussing stuff that was happening on here? Talk about double standards!

Actually Val is a member of this board, so this "sue" false claim is Smiley against Smiley.