House Rules
Tue, Apr 27 2010, 10:29AM
We've published a page of House Rules - the aim of which is to ensure the good nature and civilised environment of the Gramophone Forum.
Tue, Apr 27 2010, 11:29AM
#2
RE: House Rules
Micos69,
My hunch is that most forum members will probably concur with any moderation we might make on grounds of the post being offensive. And if we ever do ever err on the site of caution, I also expect you'd all understand why, even if you may disagree. This particular point in the rules is not about closing down free speech or being censorious, it's exactly as you put it - "to cultivate a civilised discourse".
Tue, Apr 27 2010, 7:17PM
#3
RE: House Rules
I would be careful of this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling/
Should you moderate user comments, for whatever reason, you will be liable for them according to the courts!
Tue, Apr 27 2010, 8:29PM
#4
RE: Home
Yes, we're very aware of the pitfalls, and not just from idle reading of websites – it's one of the reasons all Haymarket editorial staff do frequent law refresher courses, and why we have very good lawyers!
Wed, Apr 28 2010, 5:52PM
#5
RE: Home
I would be careful of this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling/
Should you moderate user comments, for whatever reason, you will be liable for them according to the courts!
Thankfully that's not actually what the article or the ruling says. The headline chosen by The Register is using the word "moderate" in a rather misleadingly broad sense.
As Struan Robertson of Pinsent Mason comments
"If you want to be sure that you're not liable for what your users say, the judge is basically saying you need to ignore user contributions completely until you get a complaint."
ie, don't go looking for trouble - it'll find you soon enough if it wants to :-)
But any manual pre-moderation or editing of a user's message means the host must have seen it, and effectively (re)published it after pre-moderating or editing it, and will therefore assume joint legal liability for it.
Tue, Apr 27 2010, 10:45PM
#6
RE: House Rules
This last post (SpiderJon) suggests that the only appropriate course of action is deletion, as I understand is the Amazon practice for their forums. I have no problem with this, provided offenders are informed and given the opportunity to express their views more acceptably, i.e. consonant with the 'good nature and civilised environment' Martin refers to.
Martin,
A very sensible and well-considered set of rules, though I have some difficulty with the very first. The issue raised here - 'What is offensive' is one that is currently extremely relevant, and asks a fundamental question: what sort of criteria are we adopting? A creationist would find a Darwinist statement attacking the notion of a world created in six days as deeply 'offensive'.
Could we not wrap this round a positive statement that the aim of the forum is to cultivate a civilised discourse in which the views of others, expressed in similarly civilised framework, are discussed. OK, this is a bit woolly, buit I think it is an improvement on the rather sterile and endless discussions that rage about what is libellous, offensive, blasphemous etc - and I like to believe that forum participants are hard-wired with these values anyway.