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

To help everyone self-censor appropriately, I've copied and pasted the portion of the House Rules that applies to defamation and libel law:

"What you post or write must be legal

Material which is illegal (defamatory, for example)... has to be removed. You may not post [d]efamatory or illegal material of any nature anywhere on the site. This includes text, graphics, video, programs or audio..."

The House Rules can be found here: A87523211

The h2g2 Moderators cannot allow posts which make claims, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that disparage individuals involved in ongoing criminal investigations, regardless of jurisdiction.

Please refrain from stating or repeating allegations or accusations in such a way as to indicate or imply veracity. The moderators cannot and will not respond on site on a post-by-post basis. Posts which breach the House Rules with regard to defamation will be removed.

Thanks again for your cooperation.

Is a dead person an "individual". I assume the issue must be with living personages such as Mr Glitter and Mr Starr.

The Moderation Team is not aware of any jurisdiction in which defamation laws apply to the dead, no.

Also, please remember that defamation law applies to claims which are stated or implied to be factual. Stating an opinion, or tempering one's statements with qualifiers such as "alleged" or "allegations", etc., does not violate defamation law in any jurisdiction we're aware of, and does not breach any of the House Rules.

We hope this helps.

Not me. I've got Barbara Streisand on the radio - a diva Jew

A quick look over past comments then picks up one of alfsters comments to be allegedly near the mark (I have amended it here):

>>"He denies claims by Karin Ward that he tried to grope her in 1974 when she was a 14-year-old schoolgirl.

Indeed, he was just allegedly feeling her womanly curves... <<

Moderator 007



Why can't you respond on the site? Is it a rule of the company or a UK law?

If it's a company rule...change it and be more pro-active - as I have said it would surely reduce the amount of work you will have to do in the future.

You will know which posts are on-the-line. The time it took you to write the post quoted you could have typed in a few numbers of the posts that are iffy.

I'm never sure whether what I think is 'common sense' is 'common sense' so I might be wrong...

Stone Aart - the saturnalian Sybarite on sabbatical
A quick look over past comments then picks up one of alfsters comments to be allegedly near the mark (I have amended it here):

>>"He denies claims by Karin Ward that he tried to grope her in 1974 when she was a 14-year-old schoolgirl.

Indeed, he was just allegedly feeling her womanly curves... <<

Ah, yes thank you...I;ve been off this site too long and forgot that you can;t assume a tongue-in-cheek comment is just that.

Saw a guy dressed as Jimmy Savile last night, but he didn't have any props.

Clothes, but no cigar.

Hmm! Seems that maybe some of the media are indulging in hearsay yet again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20156576

>> Clothes, but no cigar. <<


~jwf~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A9yJUOdVyUc

'Stating an opinion, or tempering one's statements with qualifiers such as "alleged" or "allegations", etc., does not violate defamation law in any jurisdiction we're aware of, and does not breach any of the House Rules.'

Careful, now. Don't be thinking using the word 'alleged' affords you any legal protection. In some jurisdictions, each repetition of a defamation counts as a separate injury. Merely saying you're just reporting what someone else alleged doesn't mean you aren't guilty of defamation. I'm just clarifying this because I wouldn't want anyone thinking they can't be touched under law so long as they throw the world 'alleged' in.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment

Fascinating.

"If their parents complained, she said, the director-general’s office would write and say the nation wouldn’t understand such an accusation against a much loved figure."

If true, this is possibly the most shocking part.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/10/bbc-crisis-george-entwistle-resigns

And now on The Andrew Marr SHow they have gone into self-flaggelation mode. Although, Dimbley and Hastings are talking sense...DG can't be editorially active on everything due to size of BBC, Hastings: too much faceless middle management not up to the job, no sane person would have moved to Salford (I agree, total waste of money, and selling off BBC Television Centre - go and visit before its sold off.)

At least they haven't put a super-injunction on any of this...*cough* *cough*

Heard some BBC bint on the radio yesterday blaming the current cuts to the BBC's funding, claiming this has led to the "quality people" leaving.

Yeah, blame the cuts, evil Tories yada yada

Presumably the cuts must have had some effect, and probably not a positive one.