Good morning all
I'm sure Harry is correct in saying that the truth cannot be defamatory.
I'm also sure the moderators are doing their best in what seem to be delicate circumstances.
I had another look at the forum rules version 2.2, as set out in the "sticky" above, and a couple of things puzzle me a bit.
1. "Your Legal Responsibility:Please note that you are personally liable for anything you choose to post publicly on the forum. Think before you post. Defamation, slander and other offences are serious, and can cost you your job, your home and your liberty. Think BEFORE you post.
Even after posts are removed from public view, directly by moderators, or in response to a complaint, moderators or other individuals may make affected parties aware of the posts and the poster, in order that legal redress may be made. Moderated posts are not always deleted, are kept in a separate area, and will be made available for legal purposes if necessary.
Forum DisclaimerAll views and opinions expressed on this forum are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Whaley Bridge Town Council (the forum facilitators), Trusted IT (the hosts for our server) or the moderators."
This seems to mean that the forum is not responsible for any potentially defamatory posts.
Obviously it's difficult for a moderator to judge whether or not a post is true. I agree that in case of doubt it's safer to delete a post. But, as the forum has disclaimed responsibility, is the deletion just to protect the poster?
If so, could the poster be given the choice of whether or not to stick to his/her guns and to accept any possible legal consequences?
2. "Moderators Moderators may move, delete or edit any posts without warning, which they feel break the forum rules or which they feel are deliberately testing the forums patience or the moderators patience. Moderators may also move or delete or edit posts which they feel are deliberately provocative, which they feel may be libellous or which they feel may cause distress to another user. Moderators may warn, suspend or ban users without prior notice. Moderators are not liable in any way for failing or omitting to remove a post. Moderators are not required to give any reasons or enter into any discussion about their reasons for removing posts. The moderators decision is final. Posts questioning the moderators decisions will not be tolerated and will be deleted. Your posting history will be taken into account in any decision by the moderators.
Moderators, as unpaid volunteers, make their decisions based on the rules of the forum, and in the best interests of the forum. In using the forum, you agree not to hold the moderators responsible or liable in any way for any decisions which may subsequently, or on appeal , be reversed or relaxed."
This seems to cover quite a lot, but it's interesting to see that posts can be removed, even if they are true, for being "provocative", for possibly "causing distress" or for "testing the patience" of the forum. So possible defamation isn't the only reason for removing posts. It would be interesting to know if moderators have any guidelines to interpret these provisions.
I'd just like to add that I don't know the exact circumstances that have led to the present controversy, and I'm not asking for any explanation of why any specific post was deleted.
