From time to time we have had to delete or edit a number of your responses to stories.
Some of you have questioned why we have done that, querying that we should not have done so, given that your responses have echoed only what agents think.
We absolutely welcome your comments and believe free speech is important.
We do not suppress comments and very rarely either edit or get rid of them altogether.
However, we are concerned that some posters could be caught in the cross-fires of litigation.
In general, our advice is that posters should steer clear of any personal comments – whatever you think of a particular person, please be careful of your opinions about that person; posts should not allege any fraud, for example claims about firms operating Ponzi schemes or whether they have been or are trading illegally or insolvently; or whether someone is a liar; calls their motives into question; or has misled, or is misleading, investors.
These are among claims that, for your own sakes, we cannot allow you to make. As we say, this is for your own sakes.
So please be very careful when you air an opinion.
This is not censorship but we must all abide by the laws of libel.
Comments (31)
I am the BEST agent in the world….probably!
I laugh in the face of censorship 🙂
No issue with a degree of moderation from PIE.
Fair comment from Chris re a note stating “These comments have been Edited” …….which I think we have?
I have had comments edited and indeed been threatened with legal action by one poster – and I happily invited them to court to discuss the matter in a legal forum. Suffice to say they ran away, however…. frankly I could have done without the Lawyers, including my own.
That’s what Ros & Co try to help avoid.
Duly noted PIE.
Understood, I have also had comments edited and can see the sense in it. It’s more than a little frustrating however, that for the last five years or so traditional high street agents have had to put up with a torrent of abuse from various ‘disruptors’ or more accurately charlatans. The misery Emoov is inflicting on it’s staff and customers this week is clear proof of the comments on this board.
I support PIE on this as they could be dragged into litigation for publishing comments. My personal view is that they do allow a freedom of expression. I like many others sometime become a little too enthusiastic.
Agreed. Recent story really brought this to the forefront, however care has to be taken that it does not stiffle freedom of speech with objections and highlighting lunacey, which can just as easily put things onto a straight path. PIE have the balance right for many years, after all it is a forum open for debate.
>I support PIE on this as they could be dragged into litigation for publishing comments.
This isn’t what PIE are saying. They are saying they are protecting posters.
>These are among claims that, for your own sakes, we cannot allow you to make. As we say, this is for your own sakes.
It is my understanding that a website such as this can protect themselves from liability by providing the identity of the person making any alleged libelous comments. If they refuse to provide the identity then they themselves become liable.
No problems as far as free speach goes. Just be careful you can substantiate what you are saying. But here, it looks like PIE are taking the cencorship approach.
“No problems as far as free speach goes. Just be careful you can substantiate what you are saying”
Free speech: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
Yes, theoretically there is no problem but PIE are cencoring.
See
The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111104620
PIE can avoid all liability by providing details of the poster.
See above, are you now going to “come out” then or does it only apply to others?
>are you now going to “come out”
Now you’ve lost me.
It’s very simple.
In theory you can say whatever you like but if you can’t substantiate it then you can be succesfully sued and PIE will be liable unless they provide your details to the complainant.
PIE have two options. Allow free speech and provide poster details if there is a complainant who wants them or disallow free speech. They have chosen, which of course is their decision to make, to inhibit free speech.
Someone’s been reading ‘Libel Law for Dummies’.
That puts facebook well and truly in the dock. Would you care to venture over to that forum and see how far you get. Don’t be suprised if the response isn’t a little more colourful than we ladies and gentleman on PIE.
Ducky, if your going to quote legislation, know all your facts and not to be an archchair lawyer?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
As is your norm, you get over excited when ever you feel you can find a horse to back and have ago at agents. There is a big difference between deformation and freedom of opinion and expression.
As someone whose comments have been amended or deleted in the past, I fully understand and respect PIEs’ position on this. However, where such comments have been amended or removed by the editorial team (especially in the case of editing) it should make it clear how, where, why and what has been edited. The current situation leaves PIE putting words in others mouths and potentially misrepresenting the poster which, in turn, could cause legal problems for both parties.
>As someone whose comments have been amended or deleted in the past, I fully understand and respect PIEs’ position on this.
Sounds very much like you’ve been making claims that PIE think you can’t substantiate Chris.
I was going to comment but rather hit and join the other dislike(s) … I would have been sensored, as this post seem more akin to putting the knife for self endulgence, in Chris’s back.
No, it sounds as though Mr Wood has in the past written things that, whether true or not, could have brought him and PIE under scrutiny in the wrong manner and they have therefore acted.
There’s no question of substantiation or not in either the article above or Mr Wood’s comments.
I feel like people may have misunderstood me there; I was trying to support Mr Wood, i.e. Cyberduck was trying to discredit him by implying he was making spurious claims and I was trying to point out that PIE have made it clear that the edits are nothing to do with whether the claims are spurious or not, it is to do with the risk of such things being published.
Dom_P
I fear that your user name being vaguely similar to that of the dip-in:duck-out drivel merchant that is dom-boy might have bought you those dislikes before people even read the comment!
Alternatively, your comment was read in the manner in which you meant it by those whose agenda it wouldn’t complement, and they voted accordingly with a yaaaah-boo!
I like the second option waaaaay better!
Fair enough, makes sense!
Me and my pesky user name…
All of the above COULD POSSIBLY be true of a certain person who was in charge of a PARTICULAR online agency. Which we believe MAY not be doing so well at the moment.
(COULD, POSSIBLY, MAY ETC TO BE USED)
Eg: “We are the BEST Agent in Area” without any facts turns into “We are ONE of the BEST Agents in the Area”
I did use some of the words as stated in the article and will try and be more tactful on future posts.
Well done PIE, I am as vocal as the next man but there are rules and you are right to protect the interests of your readers because some comments have over stepped the mark, even though most of them I have agreed with but simply wouldn’t have written myself!
>This is not censorship but we must all abide by the laws of libel.
Sounds like censorship. There is no law against saying something if you can prove it. How does EYE know whether a poster has proof or not?
Personally I think it better that EYE admits to censorship in terms with a defined policy of what is allowed and what is not. That seems to be the way most moderated forums work.
There is no law against saying something if you can prove it.
Would you like to rephrase that statement before it bites you!
Woodentop. Please elaborate. Are you saying there is a law against telling the truth if you can substantiate your claims?
“How does EYE know whether a poster has proof or not?”
They dont.
So they take the sensible, precautionary route. It is the poster they seek to protect, and they do not want to be the vehicle for litigation.
PIE can avoid liability and allow free speach by providing the identity of the poster but choose to censor.
See “The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111104620
The owners and operators of EYE run THEIR site the way THEY see fit.
Don’t like it?
You know where the door is… don’t forget to shut it on the way out.
>The owners and operators of EYE run THEIR site the way THEY see fit.
Of course they can but they clearly don’t think free speach is that important.
>Don’t like it?
Quite happy for them to inhibit free speach if they want to.
Maybe PIE should reconsider your subscription to a forum which you have entered for in the main your peresonal enjoyment of “having ago at agents”. Oh yes, there is more than enough evidence to support this claim. You are often atagonistic, biased and act in a Troll like manner which does not benefit readers. The saying is; if you have nothing nice to say, don’t. If you have nothing constructive to bring to the table, don’t say anything. The question is, are you taking up readers time unnecessarily with a personal agenda/motive that does not benefit the readership?
PIE have the right to set its own rules. PIE should and do act as “moderators” when it becomes necessary. If you don’t like it … there is the door, no-one is holding a gun forcing anyone to stay.
Woodentop, clearly you didn’t read my above post. I have no problem with PIE inhibiting free speech.
>The question is, are you taking up readers time unnecessarily with a personal agenda/motive that does not benefit the readership?
Who says my posts are of no benefit? Personally I think bringing the relevant litigation to the attention of readers (not just the few who comment) is beneficial.
Actually it seems to be you who is uncomfortable with the approach being taken by PIE “I was going to comment but rather hit and join the other dislike(s) … I would have been sensored”
You missed this bit off my quote .. very convenient for you …
“… as this post seem more akin to putting the knife for self endulgence, in Chris’s back”.