Message Boards

[knapplc]

I am not a fan of threads being locked and it happens all over, not just here. It smells of censorship and in my opinion...bad things happen when people are silenced. The mods can do whatever they deem appropriate, but just be careful with censoring is all.

For the record, none of the Mods are happy when threads are locked.

 

[HuskerGBR]

I am not a fan of threads being locked and it happens all over, not just here. It smells of censorship and in my opinion...bad things happen when people are silenced. The mods can do whatever they deem appropriate, but just be careful with censoring is all.

For the record, none of the Mods are happy when threads are locked.

You guys are pretty good about it honestly. I mean if you do too much locking then it turns into some gestapo site or something (I don't know what that means, but can't think of anything better to say). You do too little and it is like the tigerboard. So you guys have a rough little deal and you guys are pretty good so you get a :thumbs . I was mostly talking about other sites that really censor things.

 

[sd'sker]

Again, this is not a First Amendments issue. There is no "free speech" on an Internet forum.

I'm not using the term in a legal sense.

What sense are you using it in then? Pretty sure the owners and moderators of this forum have the privledge and responsibility to run the message board how they see fit. Just curious how free speech would come into play in any way shape or form.

i'm not trying to get into this debate, but it seems husker_x is arguing that there is no defamation, so no worries. without some form of defamation, there is no liability, and no legal recourse. but the mods have their reasons, so whatever. also, rumors and speculation really is not good for us fanatics that live and die with every word on the huskers, just saying. :moreinteresting

 

[knapplc]

i'm not trying to get into this debate, but it seems husker_x is arguing that there is no defamation, so no worries. without some form of defamation, there is no liability, and no legal recourse. but the mods have their reasons, so whatever. also, rumors and speculation really is not good for us fanatics that live and die with every word on the huskers, just saying. :moreinteresting

There doesn't have to be rock-solid evidence supporting the allegation to create a problem for the board. All there has to be is enough evidence to get it in front of a judge, and then it starts costing us money in legal fees. The more money the board spends in legal fees, the less likely it is that the board stays up.

 

[sd'sker]

i'm not trying to get into this debate, but it seems husker_x is arguing that there is no defamation, so no worries. without some form of defamation, there is no liability, and no legal recourse. but the mods have their reasons, so whatever. also, rumors and speculation really is not good for us fanatics that live and die with every word on the huskers, just saying. :moreinteresting

There doesn't have to be rock-solid evidence supporting the allegation to create a problem for the board. All there has to be is enough evidence to get it in front of a judge, and then it starts costing us money in legal fees. The more money the board spends in legal fees, the less likely it is that the board stays up.

if i pass the bar next year, i'll represent the board, pro bono.

 

[rawhide]

weeet deal and no retainer.. much cheaper than AR :laughpound

GBR

 

[HuskerJosh]

i'm not trying to get into this debate, but it seems husker_x is arguing that there is no defamation, so no worries. without some form of defamation, there is no liability, and no legal recourse. but the mods have their reasons, so whatever. also, rumors and speculation really is not good for us fanatics that live and die with every word on the huskers, just saying. :moreinteresting

There doesn't have to be rock-solid evidence supporting the allegation to create a problem for the board. All there has to be is enough evidence to get it in front of a judge, and then it starts costing us money in legal fees. The more money the board spends in legal fees, the less likely it is that the board stays up.

if i pass the bar next year, i'll represent the board, pro bono.

Depending on the state, it ain't too bad.

 

[knapplc]

Heck, I pass the bar all the time.

It's when I stop in for a drink or 40 that I have problems. :facepalm:

 

[sd'sker]

i'm not trying to get into this debate, but it seems husker_x is arguing that there is no defamation, so no worries. without some form of defamation, there is no liability, and no legal recourse. but the mods have their reasons, so whatever. also, rumors and speculation really is not good for us fanatics that live and die with every word on the huskers, just saying. :moreinteresting

There doesn't have to be rock-solid evidence supporting the allegation to create a problem for the board. All there has to be is enough evidence to get it in front of a judge, and then it starts costing us money in legal fees. The more money the board spends in legal fees, the less likely it is that the board stays up.

if i pass the bar next year, i'll represent the board, pro bono.

Depending on the state, it ain't too bad.

you mentioned that for it to be a first amendment issue, there has to be a state actor. i did not think that was true. could you explain it to me?

i thought that if a person sued someone for saying something or publishing something they did not like, and it was not defamatory, then the speaker would be protected by freedom of speech, i am a little confused.

i know it is more of a torts issue than constitutional issue, but does not freedom of speech protect all non-defamatory speech?

 

[HuskerJosh]

i'm not trying to get into this debate, but it seems husker_x is arguing that there is no defamation, so no worries. without some form of defamation, there is no liability, and no legal recourse. but the mods have their reasons, so whatever. also, rumors and speculation really is not good for us fanatics that live and die with every word on the huskers, just saying. :moreinteresting

There doesn't have to be rock-solid evidence supporting the allegation to create a problem for the board. All there has to be is enough evidence to get it in front of a judge, and then it starts costing us money in legal fees. The more money the board spends in legal fees, the less likely it is that the board stays up.

if i pass the bar next year, i'll represent the board, pro bono.

Depending on the state, it ain't too bad.

you mentioned that for it to be a first amendment issue, there has to be a state actor. i did not think that was true. could you explain it to me?

i thought that if a person sued someone for saying something or publishing something they did not like, and it was not defamatory, then the speaker would be protected by freedom of speech, i am a little confused.

i know it is more of a torts issue than constitutional issue, but does not freedom of speech protect all non-defamatory speech?

For there to be a constitutional claim of freedom of speech, there must be a state actor. Of course, what constitutes a state actor is a bit more nuanced, but generally, anyone acting in an official governmental position is a state actor.

You are right, the freedom of speech issue is totally different from a defamation/slander/libel issue because those are torts against private individuals. These lightly touch on constitutional concerns, but the standard of proof is so well-established that most defendants focus on the elements of the tort, which are extremely difficult to satisfy.

I completely understand the board's mods/admins not wanting to even tempt the issue by posting rumors, but the chance of a person successfully prosecuting any of those torts (especially since Bo, the coaches, and the players would likely be considered public figures) is next to impossible. Then again, people sue for stupid things all the time and lawyers are expensive.

 

[sd'sker]

i'm not trying to get into this debate, but it seems husker_x is arguing that there is no defamation, so no worries. without some form of defamation, there is no liability, and no legal recourse. but the mods have their reasons, so whatever. also, rumors and speculation really is not good for us fanatics that live and die with every word on the huskers, just saying. :moreinteresting

There doesn't have to be rock-solid evidence supporting the allegation to create a problem for the board. All there has to be is enough evidence to get it in front of a judge, and then it starts costing us money in legal fees. The more money the board spends in legal fees, the less likely it is that the board stays up.

if i pass the bar next year, i'll represent the board, pro bono.

Depending on the state, it ain't too bad.

you mentioned that for it to be a first amendment issue, there has to be a state actor. i did not think that was true. could you explain it to me?

i thought that if a person sued someone for saying something or publishing something they did not like, and it was not defamatory, then the speaker would be protected by freedom of speech, i am a little confused.

i know it is more of a torts issue than constitutional issue, but does not freedom of speech protect all non-defamatory speech?

For there to be a constitutional claim of freedom of speech, there must be a state actor. Of course, what constitutes a state actor is a bit more nuanced, but generally, anyone acting in an official governmental position is a state actor.

You are right, the freedom of speech issue is totally different from a defamation/slander/libel issue because those are torts against private individuals. These lightly touch on constitutional concerns, but the standard of proof is so well-established that most defendants focus on the elements of the tort, which are extremely difficult to satisfy.

I completely understand the board's mods/admins not wanting to even tempt the issue by posting rumors, but the chance of a person successfully prosecuting any of those torts (especially since Bo, the coaches, and the players would likely be considered public figures) is next to impossible. Then again, people sue for stupid things all the time and lawyers are expensive.

thank you. i really was not disagreeing with the mods, it is there nature to moderate as the see fit, they have the most as stake. i was just trying to clarify. also, from what i have been reading, it seems like the decision was based on principle (which i respect) and not legal concerns. either way, whatever.

thanks for the response.

 

[HuskerJosh]

i'm not trying to get into this debate, but it seems husker_x is arguing that there is no defamation, so no worries. without some form of defamation, there is no liability, and no legal recourse. but the mods have their reasons, so whatever. also, rumors and speculation really is not good for us fanatics that live and die with every word on the huskers, just saying. :moreinteresting

There doesn't have to be rock-solid evidence supporting the allegation to create a problem for the board. All there has to be is enough evidence to get it in front of a judge, and then it starts costing us money in legal fees. The more money the board spends in legal fees, the less likely it is that the board stays up.

if i pass the bar next year, i'll represent the board, pro bono.

Depending on the state, it ain't too bad.

you mentioned that for it to be a first amendment issue, there has to be a state actor. i did not think that was true. could you explain it to me?

i thought that if a person sued someone for saying something or publishing something they did not like, and it was not defamatory, then the speaker would be protected by freedom of speech, i am a little confused.

i know it is more of a torts issue than constitutional issue, but does not freedom of speech protect all non-defamatory speech?

For there to be a constitutional claim of freedom of speech, there must be a state actor. Of course, what constitutes a state actor is a bit more nuanced, but generally, anyone acting in an official governmental position is a state actor.

You are right, the freedom of speech issue is totally different from a defamation/slander/libel issue because those are torts against private individuals. These lightly touch on constitutional concerns, but the standard of proof is so well-established that most defendants focus on the elements of the tort, which are extremely difficult to satisfy.

I completely understand the board's mods/admins not wanting to even tempt the issue by posting rumors, but the chance of a person successfully prosecuting any of those torts (especially since Bo, the coaches, and the players would likely be considered public figures) is next to impossible. Then again, people sue for stupid things all the time and lawyers are expensive.

thank you. i really was not disagreeing with the mods, it is there nature to moderate as the see fit, they have the most as stake. i was just trying to clarify. also, from what i have been reading, it seems like the decision was based on principle (which i respect) and not legal concerns. either way, whatever.

thanks for the response.

You're welcome. The First Amendment is a complicated thing. My Con Law II class spent an entire semester on it.

 

[eliot1171]

I leave for one day and this place turns into a slap fight. :facepalm:

 

[knapplc]

I leave for one day and this place turns into a slap fight. :facepalm:

How can we miss you if you won't go away?

 

[Chomper]

Thanks Mods for locking some of these posts!!! Respect is an issue that many people have a problem with.