Free Speech??

[james280779]

Got an email from Pistonheads moderators which including the following

'Ref the stolen 458: That is quite an accusation and falls far into the realms of libel. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you like and damn the consequences'

So it isn't free speech???

Luckily I live in a country where free speech is still allowed and I dont have to say chalkboard, teach my kids rainbow sheep and can buy a tin with a gollywog on it and am not liable to libel.

and for the record it wasnt an accusation - more an opinion based on volumes of experience in similar circumstances. No question any police officer would not be asking.

I think this post might just last a few hours before its also banned

[Chrisw666]

james280779 said:

am not liable to libel.

You're certain about that? You're also certain by allowing you to publish your views Haymarket aren't jointly liable and therefore need to look out for number one?

[Big Al.]

Just for the record there no such thing as free speech on Pistonheads, I like you are an invited guest of Haymarket.

Whilst you may think you have the right to post what you want, they reserve the right to edit or remove anything they feel is contentious, defamatory, libellous or any other reason they feel fit.

If you want free speech on the internet it easy, start your own website.

HTH.

[Stuart]

OP: whilst you may or may not be liable to a libel claim, the reality is that what you write on this site is deemed to be published in the UK by us, so we'd be co-defendants in any claim. As we're the bigger organisation with deeper pockets we'd be the likely sole target of any action, and we'd pick up the cost of defence and any resultant award. We're liable, even if you might think that you aren't.

So for that reason alone, while you post on here you will abide by our rules of posting, and the moderators will enforce them.

[standardman]

OP Create your own website and say what you like.

See what happens

[vdubbin]

Stuart said:

OP: whilst you may or may not be liable to a libel claim, the reality is that what you write on this site is deemed to be published in the UK by us, so we'd be co-defendants in any claim. As we're the bigger organisation with deeper pockets we'd be the likely sole target of any action, and we'd pick up the cost of defence and any resultant award. We're liable, even if you might think that you aren't.

So for that reason alone, while you post on here you will abide by our rules of posting, and the moderators will enforce them.

That's the most precise and concise explanation I've heard in the Free Speech debate. Thanks! I may even recycle it the next time someone claims their rights are infringed.

[Stuart]

vdubbin said:

That's the most precise and concise explanation I've heard in the Free Speech debate. Thanks! I may even recycle it the next time someone claims their rights are infringed.

Thanks. It genuinely isn't that we're on the side of the bad guys, want to stifle free speech, accept advertising revenue from rotters or any of the other reasons why people don't like being on the receiving end of moderation. Very simply, we'd rather spend money on other things than lawyers!

[The Beaver King]

Stuart said:

OP: whilst you may or may not be liable to a libel claim, the reality is that what you write on this site is deemed to be published in the UK by us, so we'd be co-defendants in any claim. As we're the bigger organisation with deeper pockets we'd be the likely sole target of any action, and we'd pick up the cost of defence and any resultant award. We're liable, even if you might think that you aren't.

So for that reason alone, while you post on here you will abide by our rules of posting, and the moderators will enforce them.

So if I understand this correctly; Pistonheads is liable for content posted on the forums because it has provided the platform for the opinion to be voiced?

Can Pistonheads not have a contractual overrider that states comments and views expressed are not necessarily the view of Pistonheads or Haymarket? Does that not offer a degree of protection or is it easier to moderate content?

I only ask out of curiosity, personally I haven't had an issue with the moderation on this site.

[tog]

The Beaver King said:

So if I understand this correctly; Pistonheads is liable for content posted on the forums because it has provided the platform for the opinion to be voiced?

Can Pistonheads not have a contractual overrider that states comments and views expressed are not necessarily the view of Pistonheads or Haymarket? Does that not offer a degree of protection or is it easier to moderate content?

I only ask out of curiosity, personally I haven't had an issue with the moderation on this site.

They are still publishing it however, so it wouldn't wash in court.

Remember if it's true (and therefore not libellous), defending a claim for libel is still very expensive.

[Stuart]

The Beaver King said:

So if I understand this correctly; Pistonheads is liable for content posted on the forums because it has provided the platform for the opinion to be voiced?

Can Pistonheads not have a contractual overrider that states comments and views expressed are not necessarily the view of Pistonheads or Haymarket? Does that not offer a degree of protection or is it easier to moderate content?

I only ask out of curiosity, personally I haven't had an issue with the moderation on this site.

No, we're the publisher in law, and there are no disclaimers against that. At present the law allows us a period of grace after we've been notified of offensive/libellous/defamatory content which takes account of the fact that we don't pre-moderate comments on the site. In this respect it is different to a piece we might decide to publish in print in one of our magazines. However once we've been notified, it is deemed that we've seen it, and support it. That's why sometimes moderators simply delete the entire thread - if we know that it exists, we must protect ourselves from action.

It isn't an empty threat either. As some know, we spent a considerable sum defending ourselves against a particularly determined complainant who took offence at a thread posted in a very tiny forum a few years back. Whilst the claim was ultimately unsuccessful, we spent an enormous amount of money defending ourselves. The sort of amount you'd enjoy spending in our classifieds...

[The Beaver King]

Stuart said:

No, we're the publisher in law, and there are no disclaimers against that. At present the law allows us a period of grace after we've been notified of offensive/libellous/defamatory content which takes account of the fact that we don't pre-moderate comments on the site. In this respect it is different to a piece we might decide to publish in print in one of our magazines. However once we've been notified, it is deemed that we've seen it, and support it. That's why sometimes moderators simply delete the entire thread - if we know that it exists, we must protect ourselves from action.

It isn't an empty threat either. As some know, we spent a considerable sum defending ourselves against a particularly determined complainant who took offence at a thread posted in a very tiny forum a few years back. Whilst the claim was ultimately unsuccessful, we spent an enormous amount of money defending ourselves. The sort of amount you'd enjoy spending in our classifieds...

Ok, interesting to know. Thanks for the reply

[crofty1984]

Stuart said:

No, we're the publisher in law, and there are no disclaimers against that. At present the law allows us a period of grace after we've been notified of offensive/libellous/defamatory content which takes account of the fact that we don't pre-moderate comments on the site. In this respect it is different to a piece we might decide to publish in print in one of our magazines. However once we've been notified, it is deemed that we've seen it, and support it. That's why sometimes moderators simply delete the entire thread - if we know that it exists, we must protect ourselves from action.

It isn't an empty threat either. As some know, we spent a considerable sum defending ourselves against a particularly determined complainant who took offence at a thread posted in a very tiny forum a few years back. Whilst the claim was ultimately unsuccessful, we spent an enormous amount of money defending ourselves. The sort of amount you'd enjoy spending in our classifieds...

I assume you're not allowed to go into any more detail than that. Shame, I'd be interested to hear the story.

[plasticman]

I thought that if your defense was succesful then the loosing party had to pay your legal fees. Have I got that wrong ?

[Oakey]

The Beaver King said:

So if I understand this correctly; Pistonheads is liable for content posted on the forums because it has provided the platform for the opinion to be voiced?

Can Pistonheads not have a contractual overrider that states comments and views expressed are not necessarily the view of Pistonheads or Haymarket? Does that not offer a degree of protection or is it easier to moderate content?

I only ask out of curiosity, personally I haven't had an issue with the moderation on this site.

It all goes back to Demon Vs Godfrey or whatever that case was regarding Usenet.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Inter...

[marshalla]

plasticman said:

I thought that if your defense was succesful then the loosing party had to pay your legal fees. Have I got that wrong ?

Depends whether they lose in court, settle out of court or drop the case completely (if the other party thinks it's worth pursuing them for the costs incurred by the dropped suit).

[Stuart]

plasticman said:

I thought that if your defense was succesful then the loosing party had to pay your legal fees. Have I got that wrong ?

In theory, yes. However we'd just prefer to avoid being in that position. PistonHeads has always taken this approach - we've never portrayed ourselves as the Watchdog of the motoring world and will never do so.

[Podie]

For the record, I have been asked to remove comments on PH.

The company involved did not question or dispute the comments, but took steps with their legal types to get my comments removed.