Quote:
Originally Posted by watzizname
I appreciate the fact that there's probably no absolute guarantee that something might slip through the vetting process, but we're talking about (at a guess) a message of fairly easy to identify hatred.
Surely it's no different to the way things run on this site, a mod notices or is informed of a problem post, removes it from public view, and does whatever they can to prevent the idiot responsible from causing further problems?
Am not experienced in libel laws, but i know something about common sense, and would have thought the terms a person agrees to when they sign up to a forum, and use of disclaimer notices, would prevent the site from being culpable? especially if it's shown that those running the site have done all they can to prevent such an occurrence, rather than just allow an unmoderated free for all..
|
I think Chris's point is that with a lot of laws, organisations can get away with little or no punishment if the law is broken on something they are responsible for *if* they can show they have robust procedures to prevent and deal with lawbreaking. We do. If a post is reported, and is found to break the site rules, it's removed immediately.
If a system of moderating posts before they are published is introduced and a mod approves an illegal post, it could be seen that the site admins have published the post.