Do we have the right to criticise within reason - debate

Ya With rights comes responsibilities..

It's why media is regulated by media laws n why there is a law protecting people from defamation of character. Nothing is ever a true democracy, the only way it would be is if this forum was not open to the public but a 'members-only' type deal. Otherwise, responsibility for what is publicly published rests on the shoulders of the mods.

Sucks.

(24-12-2010 13:59 )p-man Wrote:  Ya With rights comes responsibilities..

It's why media is regulated by media laws n why there is a law protecting people from defamation of character. Nothing is ever a true democracy, the only way it would be is if this forum was not open to the public but a 'members-only' type deal. Otherwise, responsibility for what is publicly published rests on the shoulders of the mods.

Sucks.

It is a members only type deal.... only members are allowed to post views....

All comments are open to the public. If it were exclusively members-only, only members could view..having clicked "terms and conditions" etc.

(24-12-2010 14:06 )p-man Wrote:  All comments are open to the public. If it were exclusively members-only, only members could view..having clicked "terms and conditions" etc.

but only members are allowed to make posts on here. General public must register as members before being allowed to make posts.

(24-12-2010 14:10 )Regenerated Wrote:  

(24-12-2010 14:06 )p-man Wrote:  All comments are open to the public. If it were exclusively members-only, only members could view..having clicked "terms and conditions" etc.

but only members are allowed to make posts on here. General public must register as members before being allowed to make posts.

I know, I was only referring to the fact that it is publicly open to view, so a certain responsibility rests with the mods etc for what gets posted publicly. Law suits have developed from much less than what gets written on here.

I agree, it should be free for us to say what we like whenever we like but the fact is, laws protect people and when the girls rely on a public image, like any celeb does, or actor/model/whatever, and false info or damaging stuff gets written, they have the equal right to protect that image.

Media law, boring. Had to cover it last yr.

(24-12-2010 01:54 )loulo12 Wrote:  You'd think so.

But I've noticed with this forum and with post I have made that freedom of speech only applies to a select few or if that speech agrees with whoever moderating the forums.

Examples. I have never made a post abusive nor rule braking. I mentioned that both Nigella Lawson and her mother married unattractive men, it was removed, no reason given. Next day, there was a post on the same thread saying the same thing, allowed to stay.

On another thread I said i thought Alison Mackenzie was better then her sister now, with no thought to Alison, on her own thread, (unless she had it removed), it was removed.

I've noticed this a lot. There was somebody immensely angry and abusive to another member and called them all sorts of names including swear, they wasn't removed or given a warning for this, but eventually when THEY had not got all their own way, THEY left.

Added to this a lot of people on here seem to think the models are untouchables and gang up and attack anybody who remotely says something that even could be conceived has negative; all hell breaks loose.

It's the main reason I no longer contribute that much.


I'm all for abiding by the forum rules and regulations, and not being offensive nor abusive to any body.

But a democracy this forum is not.

I've noticed this as well. I find it incredible that merely suggesting that Alyson MacKenzie is more attractive (in your own personal opinion) than her more famous sister, is deemed offensive enough to be removed. How different is that from the recent Babe Channels rounds of voting, overlooked by Scotsman, where members were asked to vote for their preferred girls in the group, last 32, last 16, QFs semis and final? Might Tori Lee, for example, not have been offended to have been told that she is less attractive than Caty Cole? I certainly shouldn't imagine so, but it does beg the question as to why your sisterly preference was deemed to be offensive.

I do notice that some members do seem to be able to get away with more than others; notice too how they seem to have their own personal cheerleaders who are never far away from thanking them or backing them up. Look closely enough and you'll see who they are.

Charlemagne makes a very good point regarding the 'select few' who have the right to criticise. I would be most interested to know the full details of how one acquires the right to criticise over others on what surely should be a free-for-all-members to air their views on an equal basis. Perhaps there's a secret handshake or some similar thing involved. Charlemagne, I invite you to expand upon your comment earlier on this site in the light of Loulo's seemingly unfair treatment.

The ball, as they say, is in your court...

PS If I'm allowed to, I would just like to say that I agree with Loulo's opinion regards the MacKenzie sisters, though I bear Linsey no malice.

Ultimately this is a forum and any criticism that is relevant or constructive should stand, abuse is obviously not reasonable. If not then the site may as well drop the forum from its title. For example if you say I don’t like babe...... because I phoned and she didn’t do it for me or I don’t like babe.... because she always looks surly on screen. I think that’s perfectly reasonable. If you say I don’t like babe... because I hate your face get off my TV screen then I think that’s just abusive and has no place here. If someone has a reason or evidence to back up why they are been critical then I think the moderators have a obligation to recognise that distinction and allow comments that aren’t blatantly abusive to stand.