See, that’s the problem in your thinking right there… you shouldn’t go comparing one board to another. For instance, just how many other online message boards have 13,000 members? Just how many are paid for by an actual company, one that can get into legal troubles through its message board, rather than a board that some punk kid is hosting through EZBoard?
It stands in my mind that the Admins have to be doing SOMEthing right. It’s wholly unnecessary to delete everything that’s a little controversial.
IANAL, but it seems to me like if the admins/moderators of the SDMB started culling “despicable” threads from the archives, then that would imply that they’re screening posts for content. And, in turn, leave them hugely liable legally should someone decide to ever sue the Chicago Reader over some objectionable post.
I would direct attention to a legal case that Prodigy lost a few years ago regarding a matter similar to this:
OK, bitch, let’s focus on this statement. This statment is a lie. A lie, as in “not true.”
You wrote this after several moderators and administrators provided you with several logical policy and legal reasons for not deleting objectionable threads. Therefore, you are lying.
You want evidence? Not that your crap deserves evidence, but schief2 has now provided evidence that you are just fucking wrong. If the admins started editing for content, the Reader would be legally liable for the content they didn’t edit. And before you open your anus again, deleting threads started by known trolls is not editing for content - it is editing based upon the identity of the poster, not the content of the post.
Now say you’re sorry and crawl back into your sewer.
Heck, Phobia! You don’t really want that to happen, do you? After all, a couple of posters (ARG220/Zion & Bluebird/Smilingjaws) would lose a lot from their post count!
SUA, mon ami, I think in your righteous wrath you may be either overstating or understating. You say:
Actually the case SCHIEF2 linked to imposed liability upon a Message Board administrator even though they didn’t edit posts, but just because they could. In other words, they had the ability to remove libellous material but did not. So under this theory, the Reader might be legally liable for the libellous materials posted here regardless of whether the Board admins. had ever edited anything before. That potential and hypothetical liability would not turn on “if the admins started editing for content;” it exists because they can edit for content. That said (and the following I assume SUA knows) . . .
“Asshole,” “dickhead,” “pustulent sore on the buttocks of humanity,” etc. are probably not libel because they are too general. “Thief” and “liar” can be libellous if they can injure the reputation of a particular person. Most of the people around here are too anonymous to be “libelled” but if someone posted “POSTER X is actually Joe Smith [true] who works for Microsoft [true] and who steals software ideas from other companies [false] on Microsoft’s behalf [false],” then “someone” has arguably libelled both POSTER X and Microsoft. And the SDMB might be vicariously liable for that libel because it had the ability to remove the libel but did not. (Contrast the SDMB to the Prodigy Money Talk board, which dealt with specific professional fields (and by extension professional reputations) and where the anonymous libelling poster put up specific lies about specific companies and people using their real names, in order to defame them. That’s far different than what is generally posted around here, no matter how hot the flames.) For this reason, the SDMB appears to take threats of libel very seriously; in the past, posters have been banned for posting specific insults that might give rise to such a problem.
Nevertheless, the case in question – which is the only one I could find imposing such liability – is a trial court case from New York State. Therefore, it is not binding upon any other jurisdiction or court, though its very existence proves that such liability might attach. The SDMB would do well to note that and act accordingly – and that means both removing libellous content (Censorship??? You bet.) and keeping all questionable threads, in the archives at least, as a record of who posted what, and when. For this reason, it is the “dirt” that must be kept and the sunshiney threads that are expendable.
Under the above rationale, perhaps one particular poster might reconsider the wisdom of posting things such as “Ed likes dirt,” and “Ed likes to see spiteful talk” and
“Ed likes power struggles,” since Ed is here in a professional capacity and is known professionally as “Ed Zotti.” I am in no way affiliated with the Reader or the SDMB, and I have never met Ed or any other mod or admin, so this cannot be construed as a threat but – as friendly advice, I would counsel that particular poster to tread very carefully.
TubaDiva : This really should never have been in About This Message Board in the first place.
This wasn’t meant as a rant, but as a serious question in the first palce. I didn’t put it in the Pit, because that wasn’t my intent. This became a fight early on, not to my liking or fault.I stupidly thought I would get a simple answer, and not all out war. Please close this thread.
You are old enough for your wants not to hurt you.
Excuse the fuck out of folks for reading what you actually posted instead of using your apparent mind-reading powers to “read” what you apparently wished you’d posted.
Just because you apparently want your posts to say something than what they actually do is no [sub]valid[/sub] reason to chastise someone who, IMHO, has far greater reading skills than you.
So what should happen to your posts here?
p.s. Notice the bolded words in my comments. Great life savers.
Thanks for spotting my goof, and I adopt your analysis.