h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just putting the Eds' post in the McCann thread, so I can find it easily: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F135418?thread=4466213&skip=200&show=200#p53149101 <<< Subject: Defamation Posted 3 Days Ago by The h2g2 Editors This is a reply to this Posting Posting 245 Hello, Just a quick note to try and clarify what we presently can and cannot say about this case. It is not entirely a 100% exact science - hence some confusion - but what is clear is that we have to be very careful about defamation. This is our legal duty. You might see discussions and speculation taking place elsewhere on the BBC and on other news outlets about this case, but journalists and other broadcasters are very careful to avoid defamation in their reports - sometimes messageboard users aren't quite so careful with what they say... So the thing to watch out for is defamation. (If at any point, anyone is charged with the crime then contempt of court rules may apply.) The mods have to remove anything that is potentially defamatory, and the BBC must remove this sort of content since it could be held liable for publishing it. The BBC has to be cautious, since nothing is ever decided to be defamatory or not until a decision is reached in a court of law, and the BBC obviously wants to stop things ever getting that far. As for now, here's a rough guide to the rules the mods are working to - let this be a guide to work to for your own posts: - "I think she did it" - fail, defamation. - "Do you think the parents might have been involved?" - okay, it's a question. - "I suppose the parents might well have been involved" - fail, defamation. - "I suppose that the parents have to be investigated by the police, they have to cover all possibilities" - fine. - "Do you think they did it?" - question, so okay. - "Yes, I bet they did it!" - fail, defamation. We hope this helps, h2g2Editors. <<<

Fair points in general. Although it is slightly impractical to expect a lack of defamation in the situation where it's fine to ask the question, but not to answer it once asked.

Presumably that's the legal boundary though. That you can ask the question but not state it as fact or belief. It kind of makes sense, in that a questions can answered in the no, so it's not necessarily defamation. But an outright statement means that the person is whatever, and that is defamation (if it's untrue of course).

Oh and don't mention Doctor Who and his because it'll be removed.

What do you mean GB?

This post has been removed.

Yet again, I'm not allowed to talk about Doctor Who!

Why, what's wrong with that GB?

Is it the word tardis?

I don't know what's wrong with it. I keep being modded for talking about it though.

I must be missing something...