Official BF Rooch (Roast) Thread

[Total Power]

ohmygodiamgreat
Banned

Join Date: Aug 2006
Club: Adelaide


shortest stay ever?

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

haha they are hot on it, but you got to love him.

 

[Stiffy_18]

ohmygodiamgreat
Banned

Join Date: Aug 2006
Club: Adelaide


shortest stay ever?

I just wish moderators would stop banning him. This board is way too quiet without Jack.

I say bring back Jack!!!!!!

 

[tribey]

Will you rip up your BFSC membership in the BigFooty carpark like that Port supporter who did in front of the cameras at Alberton when it was announced Jack was to be shown the door?

Never mind he'd be getting a new one in the post the next January.

Classic stuff. Who else remembers this?

 

[jc67]

I just wish moderators would stop banning him. This board is way too quiet without Jack.

I say bring back Jack!!!!!!

Strongly agree, should start a poll

 

[jc67]

Will you rip up your BFSC membership in the BigFooty carpark like that Port supporter who did in front of the cameras at Alberton when it was announced Jack was to be shown the door?

Never mind he'd be getting a new one in the post the next January.

Classic stuff. Who else remembers this?

I did the same thing when Mark Williams was appointed at the Bays.
Dumb

 

[Chief]

In an internet forum sense, the owners of the site (the publisher), the editors (the moderators) and the distributers (the ISPs) would all be subject to a libel action if XX felt that aggrieved.

Incorrect. Read Marvin's post and the link to the ACMA.

 

[Chief]

Marvin:

Micky says "Please tell Marvin that my point is that ACMA needs to get Internet rules. I know they have none. That was the point I was making."

So funny that he DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO CLICK THE LINK AND READ THE FACTS! If he did, he articulated his response so poorly as to be indistinguishable from a complete fabrication. That is champagne journalism.

 

[Crow-mo]

Marvin:

Micky says "Please tell Marvin that my point is that ACMA needs to get Internet rules. I know they have none. That was the point I was making."

So funny that he DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO CLICK THE LINK AND READ THE FACTS! If he did, he articulated his response so poorly as to be indistinguishable from a complete fabrication. That is champagne journalism.

heh heh

 

[RogerRabbit69]

Following the Advertiser web newspaper thing launched this week, what's the bet that they don't set up web-based chatforums on their site based on the BigFooty model by Christmas. And promote it heavily in the print version of their paper, and load it up with fat prizes for post of the week?

I think it'll be some time before the Advertiser enters the world of true chat forums. I'd expect them to start a number of blogs - but they're nowhere near as immediate and interactive as forums such as this.

Check out the Guardian Unlimited model (guardian.co.uk), which has been a leader in newspaper websites. They've got blogs for everything.

 

[Chief]

Rupert bought MySpace and has been in Wired magazine crowing about the future of (profitable) media being social networks, blogs and message boards.

 

[- PC -]

BigFooty should aim higher, not lower, than the standards of the daily press.

I think Chief would like that but we are only as good as the lowest common denominator. It is the anonymity which drags us down.

I wrote last week that in ten years tiime, Son of Murdoch would probably buy BigFooty if it continued to grow its audience. I've changed my mind.
Following the Advertiser web newspaper thing launched this week, what's the bet that they don't set up web-based chatforums on their site based on the BigFooty model by Christmas. And promote it heavily in the print version of their paper, and load it up with fat prizes for post of the week?

I agree this is a possibilty. But it wont get me there

 

[JohnK]

We actively monitor for breaches of our rules, but we do not review every single post so make no guarantees about what we will and will not find, or whether we are qualified to know what is defamation and what is not.

Each user is a publisher on this site. Each user is responsible for their own content published here.

Are you sure about that, Chief?

Go to http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile3.htm for a discussion about Australian libel laws... and this bit in particular:

Publication is not restricted to mass media such as books, newspapers, magazines, radio and television. In the past it has been taken to encompass dictation of a defamatory letter or receipt of a telegram by a post office clerk. The landmark Rindos decision thus identified that publication included a news item on an electronic bulletin board. If someone other than the plaintiff is involved publication can also encompass web pages, CD-ROMs, files placed in a filesharing facility and email messages.

Any person (an individual or corporate entity) that takes part in or authorises publication of defamatory material is said to have published it and is thus liable. Co-publishers are jointly and severably liable: each publisher is separately liable to pay damages to a defamed person, although a publisher can force other co-publishers to join in defending an action.

Questions of authorisation are important in the online environment. In a moderated news group the operator will be liable for defamatory contents unless that content is removed. In principle the operators of corporate networks are similarly liable for defamatory statements made by agents/employees via the network in the course of employment, whether as employers or as providers of a facility.

And this bit:

As noted on the preceding page of this profile, federal telecommunications legislation broadly excludes internet service providers and hosts from liability, on the principle that they - like telephone companies - are unaware of the content transmitted over their networks and have not explicitly authorised that content, in contrast to the publisher of a newspaper or a television/radio broadcaster.

There is disagreement about whether bulletin board and newsgroup moderators can successfully use the defence of 'innocent distribution'.

It would seem to me that if the moderators read defamatory content and let it stand, they have a limited defence.

It also seems that this has nothing to do with ACMA standards or guidelines but everything to do with the different laws in each state.

The ACMA site says they do not handle defamation. That doesn't legalise it.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

I'm far from an expert on this matter, but my understanding is that the law regarding defamation and the internet is still very murky. I'd expect someone like Chief would be as up-to-date as possible (well, he should be, anyway).

However, I'm unaware of any cases where anyone has successfully sued an internet message board for defamation in Australia (and you'd guess there would have been plenty of opportunities).

If you spend enough searching with Google, you can find arguments for both sides.

 

[marvin]

Marvin:

Micky says "Please tell Marvin that my point is that ACMA needs to get Internet rules. I know they have none. That was the point I was making."

So funny that he DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO CLICK THE LINK AND READ THE FACTS! If he did, he articulated his response so poorly as to be indistinguishable from a complete fabrication. That is champagne journalism.

Wow. Michelangelo Rucci read one of my posts - my life is now complete!

"ACMA needs to step in and hold bigfooty.com accountable to the norms the authority applies elsewhere."​

That's what you wrote, Michelangelo. ACMA needs to step in. If you mean ACMA needs to get rules, write that, and make that point.

You wrote that they "need to step in", when clearly they have no basis to, according to the ACMA's own rules.

Any chance of a public clarification next week in the Tiser?

 

[JohnK]

I'm far from an expert on this matter, but my understanding is that the law regarding defamation and the internet is still very murky. I'd expect someone like Chief would be as up-to-date as possible (well, he should be, anyway).
However, I'm unaware of any cases where anyone has successfully sued an internet message board for defamation in Australia (and you'd guess there would have been plenty of opportunities).
If you spend enough searching with Google, you can find arguments for both sides.

When Chief wrote:

We actively monitor for breaches of our rules, but we do not review every single post so make no guarantees about what we will and will not find, or whether we are qualified to know what is defamation and what is not.
Each user is a publisher on this site. Each user is responsible for their own content published here.

he was saying that BF "rules" do not cover defamation. And that he did not feel obligated to understand the defamation laws. That puts all the moderators in a vulnerable position.

I agree that there may be disputed interpretations of publisher responsibility but it might be better to thrash the argument out here rather than in an expensive courtroom.

When Chief wrote:

Each user is a publisher on this site. Each user is responsible for their own content published here.

he showed there that he did not understand the legal concept of publishing.
Posters here are no more the "publisher" of their content than, say, writers of letters to the editor in a newspaper or talkback radio callers.

Roger, I'm no more an expert than you but I've been involved in getting people's words to print for thirty years as a graphic designer. In that work, I'm aware that I am as equally liable to a defamation action as the author of any libel.

BigFooty is the publisher and the moderators are their agents whether they are paid or not.

The moderators must be fully aware of their legal responsibility which has nothing to do with ACMA guidelines, or for that matter BigFooty "rules".

The lack of a precedent for a forum libel action, even if true, is irrelevant.
Your comment about Google-searching is true too.... but ... I don't see how that advances the argument of whether or not the moderators are personally liable for any libel that happens on their watch.

Chief says that the moderators do not read every post. Fair enough. But if someone reported an offensive or libellous post and if the moderators allowed that post to remain on the board, what then are the implications?

If there's a law student or a defamation lawyer on this board, come on down!

 

[arrowman]

In an internet forum sense, the owners of the site (the publisher), the editors (the moderators) and the distributers (the ISPs) would all be subject to a libel action if XX felt that aggrieved.

Incorrect. Read Marvin's post and the link to the ACMA.

Sorry Chief, but it is you who are incorrect.

Exhibit 1: Rene Rivkin vs. whoever-it-was-he-sued-for-internet-defamation-and-won.

The ACMA does not have the mandate to regulate the content of internet sites for defamatory material. It does have a mandate to regulate the content of broadcasters like Channel 10 including apparently their internet broadcasts, for material “in breach of community standards” (such as the Big Brother incident in question).

It is Rucci’s mistake to confuse these two in his article.

It is your mistake to not appreciate the difference. Marvin’s post on the ACMA is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the owners of BigFooty are open to actions for defamation, along with the posters.

I really don’t know why we are arguing about this, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge. The fact that actual successful legal cases may have been few and far between to date, or that they may be difficult and expensive to mount and win, does not change this.

 

[Chief]

he showed there that he did not understand the legal concept of publishing.
Posters here are no more the "publisher" of their content than, say, writers of letters to the editor in a newspaper or talkback radio callers.

As a content host we take no responsibility for the content people choose to publish here. Simple as that. We do not receive, review and compile the content. We provide the avenue for people to publish their own content just as a web host does.

If someone has a complaint about such material we take each complaint on a case by case basis just as a web host would.

 

[Mong]

I'm branching off topic a bit here but while we're discussing legal matters I thought it was a good time to remind, or inform people as many are obviously unaware, that copyright laws are breached each and every time that newspaper articles are reproduced in full on this site. So a word of warning to people, don't copy and paste full articles. Producing part of an article and linking to the full article is acceptable. So basically, copy a few lines or a couple of paragraphs and then add the url at the end.

Just letting you know.

 

[JohnK]

As a content host we take no responsibility for the content people choose to publish here. Simple as that. We do not receive, review and compile the content. We provide the avenue for people to publish their own content just as a web host does.

Yes, Chief. You have said twice that you take no responsibility for the content.

But the point is whether an aggrieved person might hold BigFooty, the publisher, and the moderators responsible for allowing a libellous statement to remain posted on these boards.

And what the law in various states and territories would say about that.

Retailers often state they take no responsibility for the quality of the goods they are selling but that doesn't absolve them of their legal responsibilities in any way at all.

 

[arrowman]

As a content host we take no responsibility for the content people choose to publish here. Simple as that. We do not receive, review and compile the content. We provide the avenue for people to publish their own content just as a web host does.

If someone has a complaint about such material we take each complaint on a case by case basis just as a web host would.

I hope you have strong legal advice on that because it sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

You cannot say "we do not take responsibility" any more than any other business can absolve themselves of their legal obligations by simply saying "this is the way we wish to operate".

 

[JohnK]

I'm branching off topic a bit here but while we're discussing legal matters I thought it was a good time to remind, or inform people as many are obviously unaware, that copyright laws are breached each and every time that newspaper articles are reproduced in full on this site. So a word of warning to people, don't copy and paste full articles. Producing part of an article and linking to the full article is acceptable. So basically, copy a few lines or a couple of paragraphs and then add the url at the end.

And what is the responsibility of the moderators here?

 

[Chief]

This is all you need to know:

Although the administrators and moderators of BigFooty.com will attempt to keep objectionable messages off this forum we do not preview messages. All messages express the views of the author and neither the owners of BigFooty.com (Big Internet Group LLC) or Jelsoft Enterprises Limited (developers of vBulletin) or forum moderators will be held responsible for the content of any message.

 

[arrowman]

This is all you need to know:

I can't believe that you think it is sufficient for you to make up rules that suit you, and that's it, regardless of what the law might say.

Good luck.

PS Here's another (fictitious) example:

Although the directors and management of Dell Computer will attempt to maintain reasonable quality control over our products we do not test each and every laptop battery. Neither the directors nor management of Dell Computer or forum moderators will be held responsible for the performance of each an every battery or for any damage resulting from failure of that battery.

Reckon that'll stand up in court?

 

[Mong]

And what is the responsibility of the moderators here?

I have no idea where the responsibilty lies. All I know is it breaches copyright. In your field I'm sure you know far more about this than I.