Comment in Reading News
Teddy, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:17
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/comments/view.html?story_id=2003412
"John, of Glasgow"; surely this comment he makes is libelous?? If any Informed Consent members are reading this, it seems to me John is making an accusation of material being added to your site in breach of the law. Might be worth the IC webmasters writing to the Reading Post to complain?
T.
Graham Marsden, 04 Sep 2006 01:14:50
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/comments/view.html?story_id=2003412
>
> "John, of Glasgow"; surely this comment he makes is libelous??
Hell's teeth! I haven't looked closely at those forums, but what he is
claiming is utter nonsense!
I've just written the following. Hopefully it will get posted:
* * * * *
John of Glasgow's claims that "There are many people within the BDSM
community who are co-erced into being in these photo's [...]These
pictures are then held over their heads to ensure that they partake in
future activities or risk seeing their pictures posted all over the
internet on unregluated websites like informed consent." are IMO an
utter fabrication.
Does he have any proof of these assertions? I doubt it.
Informed Consent is only "unregulated" in the same way that any private
site is "unregulated", but it would not participate in such activities
especially since its stated aim is *informed consent*!
It sounds to me more like he is someone who is using this forum as an
excuse to air an old grudge, just as many of those who are supporting
these laws seem to have a definite "anti-porn agenda" and are simply
jumping on a bandwagon that is going in a direction they want.
* * * * *
Cheers,
Graham.
Teddy, 04 Sep 2006 09:41:46
A new comment has appeared from "John, of Glasgow". This looks like a dirty tricks campaign to me...
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/comments/view.html?story_id=2003412
> >
> > "John, of Glasgow"; surely this comment he makes is libelous??
> Hell's teeth! I haven't looked closely at those forums, but what he is
> claiming is utter nonsense!
> I've just written the following. Hopefully it will get posted:
> * * * * *
> John of Glasgow's claims that "There are many people within the BDSM
> community who are co-erced into being in these photo's [...]These
> pictures are then held over their heads to ensure that they partake in
> future activities or risk seeing their pictures posted all over the
> internet on unregluated websites like informed consent." are IMO an
> utter fabrication.
> Does he have any proof of these assertions? I doubt it.
> Informed Consent is only "unregulated" in the same way that any private
> site is "unregulated", but it would not participate in such activities
> especially since its stated aim is *informed consent*!
> It sounds to me more like he is someone who is using this forum as an
> excuse to air an old grudge, just as many of those who are supporting
> these laws seem to have a definite "anti-porn agenda" and are simply
> jumping on a bandwagon that is going in a direction they want.
> * * * * *
> Cheers,
> Graham.
Graham Marsden, 09 Sep 2006 08:20:43
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> A new comment has appeared from "John, of Glasgow". This looks
> like a dirty tricks campaign to me...
True, although it does also suggest that we should be careful what we
say on publicly available forums so we don't get quoted out of context.
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul C. Dickie, 09 Sep 2006 21:00:54
In message <975661.1157358852246.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>A new comment has appeared from "John, of Glasgow". This looks like a dirty
>tricks campaign to me...
It looks more like libel to me.
Is the forum moderated or do posting appear immediately and
automatically?
--
< Paul >
Teddy, 09 Sep 2006 23:59:31
The site is (apparently) moderated. I have complained about the libel, as have others, however the site owners chose to do nothing.
T.
Author wrote:
> In message <975661.1157358852246.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
> , Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >A new comment has appeared from "John, of Glasgow". This looks like a dirty
> >tricks campaign to me...
> It looks more like libel to me.
> Is the forum moderated or do posting appear immediately and
> automatically?
> --
> < Paul >
snowflake, 11 Sep 2006 23:55:52
On 09/09/06, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> The site is (apparently) moderated. I have complained about the libel, as have others, however the site owners chose to do nothing.
The site's owners are therefore guilty in law of publishing libel and
stand to lose just as much as this "John of Glasgow" (who I am in no
little doubt is neither called John or from Glasgow) if Informed
Consent's owner (Talos? Does he know about this libel?) choose to
take the matter to court.
Zoë
--
www.t-vox.org | www.nobmouse.net
www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse | www.catnip-radio.com
Teddy, 12 Sep 2006 00:13:32
I e-mailed the newspaper editors, telling them that this entry could be considered libellous, but they apparently chose not to remove it. We should make sure that the html page is saved somewhere before it vanishes (in fact, I've just done it!).
T.
Author wrote:
> On 09/09/06, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > The site is (apparently) moderated. I have complained about the libel, as have others, however the site owners chose to do nothing.
> The site's owners are therefore guilty in law of publishing libel and
> stand to lose just as much as this "John of Glasgow" (who I am in no
> little doubt is neither called John or from Glasgow) if Informed
> Consent's owner (Talos? Does he know about this libel?) choose to
> take the matter to court.
> Zoë
> --
> www.t-vox.org | www.nobmouse.net
> www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse | www.catnip-radio.com
doulos, 12 Sep 2006 00:34:43
Case law would suggest that Reading News wouldn't be directly
responsible for comments posted by readers. However, if you were to
decide to track down "John" then I believe you can demand their
records to get the address he posted from. The problem is his
assertions specifically relate to informed consent so it would have to
be site owner who would make the libel claim.
"John" appears to be a scene insider, however, and this seems unlikely
to be an organised dirty tricks campaign. Probably one of the handful
of people who have been banned from IC in the past and he could quite
easily be on this list too. I think the best thing to do under the
circumstances would be to not say anything too spectacularly stupid on
IC (even in jest) relating to the campaign.
On 9/9/06, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> The site is (apparently) moderated. I have complained about the libel, as have others, however the site owners chose to do nothing.
>
> T.
>
> Author wrote:
> > In message <975661.1157358852246.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
> > , Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > >A new comment has appeared from "John, of Glasgow". This looks like a dirty
> > >tricks campaign to me...
> > It looks more like libel to me.
> > Is the forum moderated or do posting appear immediately and
> > automatically?
> > --
> > < Paul >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5752
>
adrian, 14 Sep 2006 17:35:56
Tanos of Informed Consent is active in pursuing attacks on it. He's
also rather good at identifying people. I was involved in
investigating a previous attack, which could be called a local turf
war issue. As in this case, the poster didn't care if he damaged an
unconnected organisation in the process. Tanos doesn't engage in
underhand tactics but he's outspoken and puts people's noses out of
joint.