Do we need to watch what we say on ARRSE?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by ishinryu, May 10, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I saw this on the Beeb website today:

    Author sues Website forum

    Is this setting a precedent for people suing website forums for what members write when expressing their opinions? Bearing in mind that this case was about child care and calling the author a terrorist. A hell of a lot less than what we have been calling Bliar and his cronies recently.

    Is this the end of free speech and being allowed to express an opinion?

  2. I don't think so, only a reminder to be careful of the libel laws.

    Edited to add that the above refers to the closing question. To the one in the thread title, I think yes. But that's always been the case.
  3. Don't say anything that can't be substantiated. That should leave us perfectly able to slag off politicians as we all know everything we say about them is true.
  4. It's worth noting the mum's net site did not enjoy particularly active moderation / management at the time these posts were made. On ARRSE, the moderation is by necessity active for reasons of OPSEC and PERSEC.

    A quick scan of locked threads and MOD comments in threads will indicate to any user that the moderation policy on ARRSE is pretty rigidly enforced (some would argue, moreso than was necessary) and the self-policing of ARRSE makes it the envy of many bulletin board sites around the globe.

    Therefore, yes, we need to be mindful of anything we state, and unltimately no one is truly anonymous from posting libelous comments.

    The success of ARRSE from an increased membership of active posters is testament to ARRSE having good moderation. Sites that have previously allowed a free-for-all, freedom of speech perspective regularly see decreasing active memberships as a result.

    Agree with all of the previous comments, but then again I didn't write any of them m'lord.
  5. This law suit is sort of disturbing. Guess freedom of speech doesn't enjoy the same level of protection in the UK as it does here. Then again, I don't know what comments were said about her as they could run into the realm of ethnic or religious hate speech which certainly is not protected.

    Aside from the stated OPSEC/PERSEC reasons, active moderation keeps the discussion civil and greatly assists the legitimacy of ARRSE.
  6. Bliar is a liar !
    Brown is psychologically flawed, AND a meddling control-freak, AND a well-balanced unreconstructed Marxist !
    Hain is too disgusting to describe.
    Hewitt is a meaningless female prat.

    Sue me. I need the publicity.
  7. Actually lsquared, if anyone wanted to start the process, they'd actually start with us.

    People forget the first place Lawyers head for are the forum owners. The threats follow on from there.

    We moderate very actively on this forum, for a variety of reasons, but people will still find cause to have a go, as has happened twice to my knowledge in the Naafi Bar , where journalists ignored the rider on the front door.

    We insist on no names of serving personnel for obvious reasons.

    Not so obvious, is sometimes remarks here, can have far reaching effects, good and bad.

    We have already been quoted on national radio by Maj.(ret) Eric Joyce MP as being "homophobic and racist" . I hope I got that quote right. No doubt someone will inform me if I haven't.

    A simple guideline could be , if you're not prepared to front the subject of a wild accusation , slander or slur, in the courts, in front of the CO or behind the MT sheds, then don't type it here.

    Here's a little scary light reading which I've quoted on Arrse before
  8. So on the basis that some labour numpty doesn't like arrse, mainly because arrse doesn't like labour, you roll over and use it as an excuse to bin topics.

    Kissy Kissy for princess.
  9. :clap:
  10. **** the papers...I know a well known wren who has been shagging around(in the past)!

    There are some very thick-skinned/gullable matelots around :twisted:
  11. That fat slag has a rep for threatening to sue parenting sites and forums left, right and centre. Most back down when she snarls. Basically the lardy lummox can't hack criticism.

    I wouldn't mind, but according to her indoors the bloated trout talks out of her cellulite ridden arse most of the time, in terms of her 'professional' advice (and my Mrs has had 5 kids, so she knows).

    Feck her! Or, not as I'd prefer.
  12. I sometimes wonder if its worth even trying to be intentionally misleading, I'd hate to think I was being helpful to the bottom feeders, Then on the other hand why bother, that would mean their presence was having an effect on what we can say or do. It go's without saying that persec etc should be observed, but beyond that Sod em.
  13. Try reading the restof whatptp said, there have been several cases so far on this subject and it is generally the ISP and the site owner that get hit not the poster, who most consider to be a man of straw as far as the value of suing. If the Mod do not do their job properly then the ISP will pull the plug, as simple as that. Freedom of speach is not absolute, live with it that's the law.
  14. What goes on in the naafi is enough for the site to get sued nearly everyday, what the princess pulled on this forum was tame in comparison.

    Is English not your first language ?