Threads relating to MCD Productions Events (2 Viewers)

[Denny Oubidoux]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

ive almost forgotten they exist so thats cool.

 

[pete]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

this not being able to talk about gigs mcd is doing is beginning to make me feel like a bold child...

but you are like a bold child.....


anyway i've made the reasons clear. it's not that complicated, really.

 

[Ex-User (5762)]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

pete, you're a wiser man than i, no doubt. but the fact is that no one from mcd posts here or uses the forum as an avenue for advertising. the only time their gigs come up is when thumpeders actually wanna talk about the bands themselves. not allowing people talk about a band because they're booked by a big promoter (which unquestionably utilises bully-boy tactics to silence it's detractors) is tantamount to censorship. all the current situation does is serve to give dudley a "big" hard-on any time he sees people talking about an mcd gig... the ability to lock threads is the on real power he's ever wielded in his life... i would certainly argue this power may have been imparted to him without due forethought to the inherent yearning of the rest of us to be full-grown adults.

i rest my case.

 

[pete]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

well, there was a time not so long ago that they did post here and use it for advertising - and i didn't have a problem with it, because as you correctly point out people here want to talk about these gigs.

But since last year's events I'm not taking any chances with what people might say as a joke when the company in question has proven themselves willing to sue. And, again, if they're willing to sue over negative comments I don't see why they should be afforded the benefit of what is effectively free advertising from the positive comments.

It's easy to say "ohhh censorship - that's bad" but in fact it's simple self preservation. What I think people don't realise is that for a long time now I've had to deal with the real world effects of the internet-world actions of others - I've had the upset emails from people, I've had the negative comments passed when I go out and - once - I had the cops ring me in work after someone made a complaint. Not cool.

edit: your argument would probably hold more water if it didn't look like you were just using it to get a dig in at someone. As it happens I'm a busy chap and I don't have ready access to read here during the day, so dudley keeps an eye on things - 9 out of 10 times he contacts me before anything gets locked.

edit #2: just to elaborate - I don't have a problem with people from MCD posting here, as long as they're not doing it in their 'official capacity', and anyone who's taken part in a thumped christmas raffle knows that they've been supportive in the past. It's nothing personal, like.

 

[Ex-User (5762)]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

welcome to my world

but seriously, some would consider these things the price of free speech... but i also understand your position. it's a pickle.

 

[RSJ]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

all the current situation does is serve to give dudley a "big" hard-on any time he sees people talking about an mcd gig... the ability to lock threads is the on real power he's ever wielded in his life...

 

[broken arm]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

someone complained to the cops???

i hope it wasn't about me...

 

[jane]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

I can see the arguments, but ultimately, it's Pete's site, and as he points out, he has to deal with real-world effects of what people post. I think if he reinstated the MCD thing, it would mean he might have to monitor the board more, and thus, in some sense, we would end up feeling even more censored. As it stands, Thumped is still pretty much the freest site you could have. It's still largely self-monitoring, and I think that preserving the MCD ban allows us to continue being largely self-monitoring.

It's not cool that Pete has had to deal with the cops because of what someone did, and the fact that probably everyone who reads that will think, "God, I hope it's nothing I did" just serves to confirm that we do try to maintain some sense of community, even if it does sometimes degenerate into namecalling and bullshit and all that.

Yes, it would be nice if we could talk about all gigs, but Thumped isn't the only music site on the internet, and I like to think that the ban makes me more conscious of when and where I am giving free publicity where it is not necessarily deserved. It also should make us all think a little bit about the real-life consequences, not just for Pete, but for everyone who uses the internet as a social tool.

If you want to talk about MCD gigs, there are plenty of other sites on the internet where you can do that. It does seem a bit artificial to be deliberately excluding their gigs, but there are so many other gigs worth talking about and supporting -- or even giving out about, if need be -- that we're hardly hard up for subject matter.

And if a promoter's willingness to sue over negative comments bothers you, take it up with them, not with the people who are on the potential receiving end of such a lawsuit.

 

[Ex-User (5762)]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

ummmmm... don't really agree with you there jane but this is about free speech after all

did anything ever happen when mcd sued boards.ie? surely it was thrown out of court because the owner of boards.ie couldn't possbly be held responsible for things other people posted on the site? i mean that would be like suing mcdonalds for graffiti in their toliets...?

 

[jane]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

ummmmm... don't really agree with you there jane but this is about free speech after all

did anything ever happen when mcd sued boards.ie? surely it was thrown out of court because the owner of boards.ie couldn't possbly be held responsible for things other people posted on the site? i mean that would be like suing mcdonalds for graffiti in their toliets...?

I don't know if it was thrown out of court, but I reckon it has more to do with the nature of a libel lawsuit. Unlike other lawsuits, the burden of proof is on the accused, and also unlike other situations, the accused is not entitled to legal aid.

That means that even a case that has no real legal grounding in rational thought can do enough to cripple someone financially and professionally even if it is eventually thrown out. It's a pain in the ass to be sued, more so to be sued for something that isn't even particularly logical or legally sound, but to be sued for libel is a bigger pain in the ass than any website owner should be expected to take on.

I understand your issue, Hag, but I also think that ultimately, while free speech is a basic public right, Thumped is still a privately-owned site, and although Pete is largely hands-off when it comes to people's posts, he is still entitled to make rules. And we are still entitled, as you have, to disagree with those rules. It's not so much about censoring us (because potentially dodgy posts can be edited and/or removed), it's about not giving free publicity to someone who would be so quick to become litigous as soon as it became less-than-glowing. It's not Pete restricting freedom of speech, what really restricts freedom of speech is a potential lawsuit.

 

[Ex-User (5762)]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

ok well if that's the case and the potential for stuff that's posted here to financially cripple pete, fair enough. no one wants that. it would be cool to find out what actually happened with the boards.ie case though... it's just weird that i can start a thread about the shins and their music but if it's mentioned they're playing here soon, the thread will be locked. i wish every word posted on the internet about gigs i put on translated into actual beneficial publicity, but that's simply not the case. people will simply go to the gigs they want to go to... so i'm just not seeing how this policy is depriving mcd of anything material or 'hurting' them in any way. i know that's not the point, it's a self-preservation issue... which is why i'm keen to find out what actually happened after board.ie were threatened.

 

[mr pharmacist!!!!1]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

*expects this thread to be 12 pages long when he gets home this evening.

 

[Goff]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

Unlike other lawsuits, the burden of proof is on the accused

Actually, under Oirish Law, the burden of proof is on the person who allegedly libels. The American way is the opposite. The result is still the same, as people being people, they always believe the worst.

What you say about name calling though...some of the comments I've recived have been fairly abusive, all because I happen to express an opinion. Quite possibly, some of them have been potentially illegal. It doesn't particularly bother me, but I know people who have felt pretty damned miserable because of stupid and insensitive comments, pm's and rep (rimands). But, as I've stated many times, people can say what they like to me. I couldn't give a shit. It is, after all, a message board and that's all* it is. There are more important things in life. Just, it would be nice if people were a little more sensitive to the feelings of others. Like us all, I'm sure I'm unintentionally guilty of the same thing.

Pete is right to ban all talk of MCD, as this is not his main surce of income. But, potentially, it could be a cost of lost income because of idiots (And I'm talking about the dodgy comments, not just the mention of MCD). It's a bit crap that people can't talk about some gigs, but MCD brought that on themselves. And, in fairness, the threads are locked, not deleted. So there's still a reference to the things and people are still aware they're on.


* Apart from the Gig Listings element.

 

[Ex-User (5762)]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/01/06/libel-laws-in-ireland/

this is interesting. but surely, people who were acutally at oxygen were scared for their lives and that was down to the poor production of the event. like, people would simply not say that unless they believed they were genuinely in danger. it's not as if mcd can actually prove their production was sufficient... thousands of witnesses to burned tents, roudy behaviour etc. so how can it be libel? sorry if i'm missing something... i'm just having difficulty seeing how mcd would have a leg to stand on in court... if this did go to court, and borads.ie were proved not to be in the wrong, could boards.ie then counter-sue for compensation (legal fees) etc?

 

[jane]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/01/06/libel-laws-in-ireland/

this is interesting. but surely, people who were acutally at oxygen were scared for their lives and that was down to the poor production of the event. like, people would simply not say that unless they believed they were genuinely in danger. it's not as if mcd can actually prove their production was sufficient... thousands of witnesses to burned tents, roudy behaviour etc. so how can it be libel? sorry if i'm missing something... i'm just having difficulty seeing how mcd would have a leg to stand on in court... if this did go to court, and borads.ie were proved not to be in the wrong, could boards.ie then counter-sue for compensation (legal fees) etc?

Dude, I don't mean to be a buzzkill, but as much as this genuinely interests and concerns me, I reckon we're getting into dodgy territory here if we start going into the details of specific incidents, given that even discussing the ban in the first place is probably pushing it.

 

[Goff]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

I like this bit and it shows that Pete is right in what he does:

• “Hosting” is the storage of information provided by subscribers. Large companies and organizations are their own hosts, but the sites of small to medium sized organizations and personal web-pages, blogs and discussion board sites will tend to be hosted by an ISP. Under the regulations, hosts are given an immunity from libel liability, which can be lost where a host is aware of defamatory content and fails to act expeditiously to remove or block the offending content.

However, I do believe that Freedom of Speech is an absolute right. So long as it's truth. Maybe it should be called Freedom To Express Truth instead.

But I can put up my own website if I want. It's Pete's board; he can do what he likes.

 

[jane]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

Actually, under Oirish Law, the burden of proof is on the person who allegedly libels. The American way is the opposite. The result is still the same, as people being people, they always believe the worst.

Sorry, that's what I meant, that the burden of proof is on the person accused of libel.

 

[Ex-User (5762)]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

yeah, i know pete can do what he likes - never said he couldn't. and he always does. i'm interested in finding out what the real result of mcd taking that action against boards.ie was and if pete needed to do this to protect himself... if yes, it's pretty sad. the logic of pete being responsible for what i post here just isn't ringing through for me... and the law does tend to be a logical thing in general.

 

[Ex-User (5762)]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

Sorry, that's what I meant, that the burden of proof is on the person accused of libel.

what about the burden of poof?

 

[Goff]

Re: do 2 censorships make a free speech?

In general yes, the law is fairly logical. But Libel Laws are just plain weird. But they have to be, I suppose.