Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 10:47:38 GMT 1
I can honestly see both sides of the argument and you make some good points. However, surely when considering legal issues on a website forum, DATM is more at risk from people who post genuine abusive messages and use foul language than from a character who misspelled someones name. I have frequently been horrified at the responses sent to Nick by various posters in response to one of his harmless jokey messages. Can’t help feeling sorry for him and think the forum is worse off without him. Where is the legal risk with foul language please? Probably isn't one but it is unnecessary IMO . |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 10, 2020 10:54:28 GMT 1
There's no legal issue with swearing as far as I can see, but deformation of character - there could be an issue there if somebody was particularly sensitive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 10:58:37 GMT 1
There's no legal issue with swearing as far as I can see, but deformation of character - there could be an issue there if somebody was particularly sensitive. Qu. Why are there two of you !on the forum . |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jan 10, 2020 11:10:41 GMT 1
There's no legal issue with swearing as far as I can see, but deformation of character - there could be an issue there if somebody was particularly sensitive. Racism sexism and homophobia all fair game though Mel |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 10, 2020 11:26:22 GMT 1
There's no legal issue with swearing as far as I can see, but deformation of character - there could be an issue there if somebody was particularly sensitive. Racism sexism and homophobia all fair game though Mel Have you dug up any evidence that I follow Tommy Robinson and other right wing SM accounts yet ted, as you've previously alluded?? |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 10, 2020 12:08:08 GMT 1
There's no legal issue with swearing as far as I can see, but deformation of character - there could be an issue there if somebody was particularly sensitive. Calling someone a prick isn't defamation. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 10, 2020 12:40:20 GMT 1
There's no legal issue with swearing as far as I can see, but deformation of character - there could be an issue there if somebody was particularly sensitive. Calling someone a prick isn't defamation. Clearly. Why is that even relevant? |
|
|
|
Post by overtonterrierspirit on Jan 10, 2020 13:15:31 GMT 1
I can honestly see both sides of the argument and you make some good points. However, surely when considering legal issues on a website forum, DATM is more at risk from people who post genuine abusive messages and use foul language than from a character who misspelled someones name. I have frequently been horrified at the responses sent to Nick by various posters in response to one of his harmless jokey messages. Can’t help feeling sorry for him and think the forum is worse off without him. Where is the legal risk with foul language please? Re Legal issues: I’m not relating this comment to use of foul language. I’m relating it to the social media issues around cyber bullying. In my opinion, based on some of the replies sent to Nick it constitutes bullying. To his eternal credit , unless I missed any, he never responded rudely to any of these messages. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jan 10, 2020 13:37:19 GMT 1
Racism sexism and homophobia all fair game though Mel Have you dug up any evidence that I follow Tommy Robinson and other right wing SM accounts yet ted, as you've previously alluded?? Not sure why I'd want or need to do that? I read the politics forum |
|
|
|
Post by sensible idiot on Jan 10, 2020 14:53:46 GMT 1
It would be interesting to know how many DATM members there are (hundreds? thousands?)....
How many have viewed this thread?
Cos as I see it, a poll with 85 votes resulting in 40 saying keep Nick's ban in place means that the majority of members can't even be arsed to vote, and of those that did the minority are against him.
Seems to me that most aren't bothered about his style / behaviour / humour or oddities.
How does the number of reports made against him over the years compare with the number of likes his posts have received?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 10, 2020 15:05:15 GMT 1
Calling someone a prick isn't defamation. Clearly. Why is that even relevant? You literally said there is no legal issue with swearing but defamation of character. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jan 10, 2020 15:07:31 GMT 1
It would be interesting to know how many DATM members there are (hundreds? thousands?).... How many have viewed this thread? Cos as I see it, a poll with 85 votes resulting in 40 saying keep Nick's ban in place means that the majority of members can't even be arsed to vote, and of those that did the minority are against him. Seems to me that most aren't bothered about his style / behaviour / humour or oddities. How does the number of reports made against him over the years compare with the number of likes his posts have received? ridiculous argument. Saying that the lack of votes in the thread is because people aren't bothered by his antics is as flawed as saying the lack of votes equates to am lack of support and the number of reports versus the number of likes is both impossible to calculate and completely irrelevant. Finally, the winning result on the poll is "no", as in don't allow him back (although even if it had been 100% yes, it wouldn't have happened) |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jan 10, 2020 15:31:59 GMT 1
Clearly. Why is that even relevant? You literally said there is no legal issue with swearing but defamation of character. Eh. That's not what I said at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jan 10, 2020 16:39:18 GMT 1
Interesting interpretation of a poll result from otiums backward doppelganger
|
|
