HotInside Scoops - how can we mere normals find out the info

[Hugor]

I understand the responsibility the mods have in protecting this site from lawsuits or closure for publicly displaying potentially defammatory rumours about public figures in the AFL community. I was just wondering if the the website would still be responsible if it wasn't available to "the public" but only to logged in members.

It seems a shame whenever there is some juicy info on players that a few obviously know the rumour and the rest of us are left wondering. Any potentially revealing clues are appropriately removed by the mods.

All the other AFL fansites are publicly viewable by non members but could this site be made more protected by only allowing access by logged in members. New members may have to be invited by existing members.

Could such a system allow us to freely discuss anything without fears of legal retribution.

This is not a critisism of the mods great work....just a thought.

[Proud Pies]

do you have a scoop that didn't come from Big Footy? PM me now!

[Hugor]

No I dont but was wondering about the recently closed thread in GD.

[London Dave]

No I dont but was wondering about the recently closed thread in GD.

Which thread was this?

[Hugor]

No I dont but was wondering about the recently closed thread in GD.

Which thread was this?

http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=39802

The point of the post was not to find this out, but in general just to ask the question that if you had a private members only board does that give you the right to free speech without risk of defamation allegations?

[London Dave]

In a sense, I suppose it would, but the only secure board would have a membership of one. We have had a few members only boards over the years (The Bored Board is I believe), but i'd reckon once you have a membership of greater than 1, you'd have the possiblity of defaming the other member of the board.

It is a bit of a minefield, so we tend to take the view that if were not sure if it's Ok, it's not OK. I know other boards have differing views and rules on this, but that's our rule of thumb.

If a bunch of you and your LMI's wanted to set up a private board, it would be considered.

Cheers
LD

[Hugor]

No the point was that if the conversation was considered private then surely we are entitled to say what we want whether it be defammatory, truthful or complete lies.

I'm not asking to create a subsociety of nicks entitled to privilidges, but in a legal sense to try and reduce our discussions to private meanderings not in the public eye legally (i.e. only to members) and therefore safe from legal retribution. Whether or not the information gets out to reporters etc is irrelavant. To draw an analogy I can say what I want to you or a bunch or my friends in a group email without fears of legal consequences if our conversation is private. The moment we have this discussion on a publicly viewable notceboard we are legally responsible for what we say.

If Nicks was to become a website only viewable by members then surely the mods/runners of the website cannot be seen as PUBLICLY defaming/supporting or endorsing an idea whether it be true, rumoured or complete shiite.

If we had a login page similar to what we have for internet banking etc we might be able to say what we want without fears of legal retribution as we have only (in a legal sense) privately discussed things rather than displayed them on a noticeboard for any passer by to see.

[London Dave]

Just my personal take on this (which probably only serves to advertise my ignorance, but anyhow...)

No the point was that if the conversation was considered private then surely we are entitled to say what we want whether it be defamatory, truthful or complete lies.

I'm not a legal eagle, but I'm not sure what exactly constitutes a private conversation. Is talking to mate on the train private? I doubt it, the person on the next seat may overhear you....does that make your conversation potentially defamatory?

I'm not asking to create a sub society of nicks entitled to privileges, but in a legal sense to try and reduce our discussions to private meanderings not in the public eye legally (i.e. only to members) and therefore safe from legal retribution. Whether or not the information gets out to reporters etc is irrelevant. To draw an analogy I can say what I want to you or a bunch or my friends in a group email without fears of legal consequences if our conversation is private. The moment we have this discussion on a publicly viewable noticeboard we are legally responsible for what we say.

You may say what you want in private email, but what's to stop someone in your group forwarding it? Is it the person who forwards a defamatory email liable, or the original author? Similarly, how does one control access to forum? What's to stop a member giving out access details?

If Nicks was to become a website only viewable by members then surely the mods/runners of the website cannot be seen as PUBLICLY defaming/supporting or endorsing an idea whether it be true, rumoured or complete shiite.

If we had a login page similar to what we have for internet banking etc we might be able to say what we want without fears of legal retribution as we have only (in a legal sense) privately discussed things rather than displayed them on a noticeboard for any passer by to see.

Again, I don't know who would be liable in that situation, but I doubt it would be cheap to find out. I would think the mods (and or Mike) would still be liable. Would we be liable for defamatory PM's flying about? Probably as liable as an email provider is when a defamatory email flies thru their system.(i.e. probably not, despite the rumour we can view everyone's PM's blah blah)

As for login to view, we do have quite a few lurkers here, people who read but don't post. Do we lock them out for a game of Chinese whispers?

For better or worse, this is just board to (mostly) babble on about the Pies. It may be that what you suggest is true, no liability, but how does one police entry?

I would figure people who post a hot 'rumour' thats 'edited' on here get plenty of PM's asking what the story was (or people check Google cache to see if it's there still)

I probably haven't 'answered' your questions per se, but to me, it's fairly murky waters in some senses, and I personally think it would be more hassle than it's worth to go down the road of a 'private' board of 2000+ members.

[Hugor]

Fair enough, thanks for your time in answering.