|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 26, 2016 9:43:41 GMT -8
Some general musings of mine on topic of social media, libel, free speech and decency:
Everyone has the right to say/print whatever they want. But there may be consequences. ie. everyone has the right to libel or slander someone, and then the victim has the right to sue for damages. I'm not suggesting that people should do slander or libel, but in free society we all have a choice.
The above comment works ok for people who choose to do defamation on their own platforms, so it only involves that one person being sued. - But there are risks when people choose to do defamation on other people's platforms such as newspapers, newspaper online comments, facebook groups whether open or closed or proboards forums such as this one here.
Owners/moderators/administrators of these kinds of platforms don't appreciate being exposed to legal risk caused by someone's choice to do defamation. So these owners/moderators/administrators control this in a number of ways, including access control and moderation.
We've had situations here where we've had to edit or delete posts, or delete members who were exposing us to risk in this way. We've had posts that suggested violent or criminal acts against public figures, for example. Joking or not, there are certain things that shouldn't be said in public, unless you want the legal consequences.
Unfortunately, there are people who don't seem able to express themselves in a civil manner, without adding threats or libelous comments. I'm not sure of the reason for this, but some people seem incapable of decent self-moderated commentary.
Which brings us to another issue, that of decency. Although indecent comments are not libel and therefore not a legal issue, we here choose to have this particular forum a place of decent conversation. So our own house-rule is that we communicate in a civil manner. - Some people have difficultly fitting in with that standard, and I don't understand why.
From looking at specific comments made by various issue-opposers on various facebook groups in recent days/weeks, it is clear that some people are not really suited to participate in this here forum. But if you are able to express opposition to something without resorting to name-calling, and if you're able to keep your cool while being passionately opposed to something, then we've got a place for you here.
You stay classy San Diego.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on May 9, 2016 18:40:24 GMT -8
It appears that the lawsuit against Pete Kimmerly has been settled, by way of a full retraction and apology for the remarks regarding Mark Collins' employment history, and the payment of the plaintiff's legal fees. Text of the statement is on the Hornby facebook page, 'Word of Mouth'.
www.facebook.com/groups/wordofmouthhornby/
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 9, 2016 20:09:21 GMT -8
It appears that the lawsuit against Pete Kimmerly has been settled, by way of a full retraction and apology for the remarks regarding Mark Collins' employment history, and the payment of the plaintiff's legal fees. Text of the statement is on the Hornby facebook page, 'Word of Mouth'.
www.facebook.com/groups/wordofmouthhornby/ Thanks for that update. "Word of Mouth" is a closed group, so we can't see it. But thanks for updating us on this outcome and the manner in which it was settled. What an odd episode.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on May 9, 2016 22:33:20 GMT -8
It appears that the lawsuit against Pete Kimmerly has been settled, by way of a full retraction and apology for the remarks regarding Mark Collins' employment history, and the payment of the plaintiff's legal fees. Text of the statement is on the Hornby facebook page, 'Word of Mouth'.
www.facebook.com/groups/wordofmouthhornby/ Thanks for that update. "Word of Mouth" is a closed group, so we can't see it. But thanks for updating us on this outcome and the manner in which it was settled. What an odd episode. Sorry, Mr Horn... I should have remembered the 'closed' aspect of the group. Suffice to say, it was a full apology, with an addenda that the plaintiff and BC Ferries were not demanding that the defendant refrain from 'constructive' criticism of the cable ferry project.
Was it a 'SLAPP' suit? Quite probably. Pete Kimmerly has been a thorn in BC Ferries' side for some time- particularly, given his maritime pedigree. But he operated a rather pointed website attacking the project for two or three years, and had a regular presence on social media, television, in print, and at public gatherings where ferry issues were discussed. He was never shut down, until the unfortunate facebook posting where allegations about Mark Collins' employment history were made; allegations that have now been apologized for, in the settling of the suit.
Probably speaks to the advisability of sticking to the argument, and leaving the personal stuff out, even if for no other reason than a tactical one.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 10, 2016 18:13:49 GMT -8
Pete Kimmerly has been a thorn in BC Ferries' side for some time- particularly, given his maritime pedigree. But he operated a rather pointed website attacking the project for two or three years, and had a regular presence on social media, television, in print, and at public gatherings where ferry issues were discussed. He was never shut down, until the unfortunate facebook posting where allegations about Mark Collins' employment history were made; allegations that have now been apologized for, in the settling of the suit. I'm still among the "Not a SLAPP suit" crowd on this one. To support my position, I use your above quote that "He was never shut down, until the unfortunate Facebook posting..." It is not a surprise that a social media comment, seen by scores of people, containing an alleged untruth about someone's employment history which presumably affects that person's professional reputation on go-forward basis, would be the trigger for a lawsuit. (how's that for a carefully worded sentence?) Up until that point, things were legally ok, albeit likely annoying to BC Ferries. But annoyance isn't a basis for a lawsuit. Alleged defamation about someone's employment history is a basis. ---------------------------- I could also comment on the social media style of various vocal cable-ferry opponents, but my comments would just be based on social expectations such as decency, courtesy, etc (that fluffy stuff that I seem to value). My comments wouldn't have any legal weight at all. People can be as nasty as they want on their own platforms, as long as they don't cross that defamation line. I appreciate the back-and-forth conversation on this social media issue.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on May 10, 2016 21:36:23 GMT -8
Pete Kimmerly has been a thorn in BC Ferries' side for some time- particularly, given his maritime pedigree. But he operated a rather pointed website attacking the project for two or three years, and had a regular presence on social media, television, in print, and at public gatherings where ferry issues were discussed. He was never shut down, until the unfortunate facebook posting where allegations about Mark Collins' employment history were made; allegations that have now been apologized for, in the settling of the suit. I'm still among the "Not a SLAPP suit" crowd on this one. To support my position, I use your above quote that "He was never shut down, until the unfortunate Facebook posting..." It is not a surprise that a social media comment, seen by scores of people, containing an alleged untruth about someone's employment history which presumably affects that person's professional reputation on go-forward basis, would be the trigger for a lawsuit. (how's that for a carefully worded sentence?) Up until that point, things were legally ok, albeit likely annoying to BC Ferries. But annoyance isn't a basis for a lawsuit. Alleged defamation about someone's employment history is a basis. ---------------------------- I could also comment on the social media style of various vocal cable-ferry opponents, but my comments would just be based on social expectations such as decency, courtesy, etc (that fluffy stuff that I seem to value). My comments wouldn't have any legal weight at all. People can be as nasty as they want on their own platforms, as long as they don't cross that defamation line. I appreciate the back-and-forth conversation on this social media issue. I'm not sure that SLAPP suits are always black and white. I think there can be degrees of slappishness in cases that ostensibly respond to language and allegations that most reasonable people would see as actionable, as in this case. True, BC Ferries refrained from trying to shut Pete down before the facebook postings at issue, but that could have just been because there was no way of doing it without appearing extremely heavy handed. The cynical side of my nature wonders if there wasn't some satisfaction in head office when the contentious comments came to light.
I'd also be inclined to quibble with your assessment with the 'social media style' of who I guess you to mean Pete and Bernhard (propwash, on here). Yes, there was at times a deficit of decorum, which in the end crossed any reasonable line. For the most part, though, there was a wealth of research and a considerable expense put out in FOI requests, in an attempt to get at actual facts and figures that BC Ferries didn't seem to want to share with the public- FOI requests that often were either stonewalled or rife with redactions, when responded to. There was also what some felt to be a lack of good faith in the 'consultation' process, characterised by what I felt was almost a passive aggressive posture in the meeting that I attended, and which others reported on from other meetings. This may all have been a misunderstanding on the part of those skeptical about the cable ferry project, and may have been the result of overly rigid attitudes. Still, for the most part, I'd say that the social media commentary from the main critics was based on honest opinion, research, and information from supposedly informed sources. There was an element of 'attitude', but I'd suggest that was somewhat in response to a similar tone from BC Ferries, although theirs was much more subtly couched.
I guess when all is said and done, the main question is how valid the carping and criticizing has been. Seems to me that the main points have not been answered, and won't be for some time, until all the project and operating costs are known, and we've seen how the BS Con manages through a full couple of winters.
|
|
|
Post by kevins on Jun 9, 2016 9:41:21 GMT -8
From a memo from the BCFMW union to its membership
REMINDER - SOCIAL MEDIA POSTINGS The Labour Relations Officers have been dealing with a rising number of issues surrounding social media, and given the recent event on Route 2, we would like to remind you and bring to your attention the current law around posting on social media on your time and/or employer time. Whether the platform is Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Vine or any other social media site, members should be cautious about sharing information about their employment, including personal issues with their employer, via social media. Employers can use off-duty social media postings to discipline members. Arbitrators have determined that social media comments are essentially the same as statements made in the workplace. Workers may have an expectation of privacy that does not exist, even if your social media settings are private, arbitrators and judges have found that private posts can be considered public posts. Private posts are not really private. Remember that once you post your comment, you lose any control over it. If you wouldn’t make the comment in a public area at work, then you should not be sharing it on social media.
************************************************************ Hard to know what to say........
|
|