-
I should note here this is why you are responsible for what you post and not I. All of the above uses the term "publish" and "published". A forum owner and administrator has not published anything if there is no editorial process. Indeed the definition of publish in all court cases on this subject have included an editorial process in which the content is reviewed prior to publication, edited (or not) and then published. The process defines publication not simply the appearance of some text on a website.
It's held that there haven't been test cases on this in the UK, but this is not true as AOL won a case bought against it when allegedly defaming posts were added anonymously to a bulletin board that they hosted. It was found that neither the ISP, the provider of services nor AOL themselves were in any way responsible for the content posted by users of the service, and that it is the users of the service that are responsible for those actions.
I'm not sure what jurisdiction applies to the forum. It's hard to say. The server is in Texas, the top level domain is .com and registered on the California DNS root, the accounts are done by a gentleman in Moscow, and the bank account is in New York. The only thing in the UK is myself personally and as already stated as I personally am not responsible for the unmoderated posts of other people that use the service... well it's hard to know what on earth they think threatening to sue me would achieve.
We don't even store IP addresses as we've not had any need to because we've not needed any moderation at all, so beyond your email addresses I don't even hold any information that could personally identify the users of this service. Even then, I wouldn't give up any information without an actual warrant, are warrants issued for defamation? I don't think so, as defamation is a civil case and warrants are generally only issued as parts of Criminal Justice and not Civil Justice.
Ho hum. I guess this thread will make for entertaining reading over at Design for Diversity this morning.
-
the accounts are done by a gentleman in Moscow,
I know i've watched too many James Bond films but that sounds wonderfully sinister "i do not expect you to moderate, velocity boy, i expect you to die mwuahhahhaha"
-
and an underground pool with sharks and a collapsing bridge. cool.
-
since edmundane mentioned I have given 'guidelines', here some for better design practice:
1) don't exaggerate who or what you are just because you have a big ego. Nothing wrong with saying: small but ambitious studio.
2) do one thing at the time but do that properly. Does it really work to be involved in 4 or 5 companies? diversity, constellation, witcomb, old kent road?
3) finish jobs and do them properly. When you design a new website for a client, it should be fully functional at the time of the launch.
4) don't talk your clients into inflated marketing strategies and image revamps (I am just assuming here) if you are not prepared for harsh critique and the possibility for the thing to go wrong. Old established companies are often better modernized in small sensible steps. They have long standing clients that react very sensitive to change.
5) It is ok to pass on design costs to the consumer but this must be reasonable and in proportion. You can't just double prices with the argument that the product has been too cheap for years and that the company has been revamped.
6) don't rip off other peoples design (Mercian, Rapha, etc). Its not just bad practice, it also doesn't work. Every company is different and if pink bold serif fonts or stripes work well for one brand it might not for another.
7) Don't underestimate the consumer. People look through marketing revamps. They very well understand when a product has just been hyped up through a bit of design.
8) Always be critical of your own work, listen to others (however painful that might be). Don't expect fairness on the internet and don't try to make your work look better than it is by using fancy titles and big words. Most great typographers are very modest people with a keen interest in very very small details rather than portraying their big egos.Basically: get real.
-
andrewleitch86 [quote]edmundane I suggest we stop using Tony Dafoney and use his real name, Tony Malone, so we get google hits when people actually search for his name to see what a fucking cunt he is.
Yes. I just google Tony Dafoney and Tony Malone. Googling Tony Malone comes up with non slanderous posts from LFGSS and proper things. One thing I would warn against though is defamation. I've chosen the English version because it's more appropriate to the circumstances. The Scots Law version is far less convaluted though. Take note.
"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
The allowable defences against libel are:
Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defence fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defence to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages. A statement quoting another person cannot be justified merely by proving that the other person had also made the statement: the substance of the allegation must be proved. The defence fails if the statement concerns spent convictions.
Fair Comment: the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.
Privilege: the defendant's comments were made in Parliament or under oath in court of law or were an accurate and neutral report of such comments. There is also a defence of 'qualified privilege' under which people, who are not acting out of malice, may claim privilege for fair reporting of allegations which if true were in the public interest to be published."[/quote]
newspapers write nasty things about people all the time, it costs an awful lot of money to bring a case of libel against someone, and as the percentage of successful cases indicates, you've got to have a lot of money, and a lot of decent evidence.
that email to VB was silly little kids trying to be threatening, the threat of "further legal action" was amusing, it poses the question, what legal action had already been taken?
Idiots, plain and simple.
(in my opinion which is in no way intended to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them) -
velocity boy Tut tut, you guys have pissed someone off I think:
[quote]
Dear Sir / MadamI am writing this with regards to one of the forums you host, the London Singlespeed and Fixed Gear forum.
[/quote]
Nasty pieces of work those members of the [b][/London singlespeed and fixed gear forum!!!b]
-
Object17 [quote]Roberto [quote]straightedgeandy the bikes in my garage go from £600 up to £3.5k in value/quote]
Wow which one is the £3.5k one - i bet it has gears ;)
[/quote]I reckon I could manage a 3.5k Fixed wheel bike, provided I get my favourite gay designer to help me out.[/quote]
You'll have to shout....
-
Platini [quote]Object17 [quote]Roberto [quote]straightedgeandy the bikes in my garage go from £600 up to £3.5k in value/quote]
Wow which one is the £3.5k one - i bet it has gears ;)
[/quote]I reckon I could manage a 3.5k Fixed wheel bike, provided I get my favourite gay designer to help me out.[/quote]
You'll have to shout....[/quote]
I SAID, "I RECKON I COULD MANAGE A 3.5K...."
-
Object17 [quote]Platini [quote]Object17 [quote]Roberto [quote]straightedgeandy the bikes in my garage go from £600 up to £3.5k in value/quote]
Wow which one is the £3.5k one - i bet it has gears ;)
[/quote]I reckon I could manage a 3.5k Fixed wheel bike, provided I get my favourite gay designer to help me out.[/quote]
You'll have to shout....[/quote]
I SAID, "I RECKON I COULD MANAGE A 3.5K...."[/quote]
arf....
-
you bad man - that made me laugh
-
This is why I love you guys. It's like watching some ironside. Legal action, digging the dirt. Smashing down the house of cards.
-
oh and Tony, just one last thing...
-
Object17 [quote]Roberto [quote]straightedgeandy the bikes in my garage go from £600 up to £3.5k in value/quote]
Wow which one is the £3.5k one - i bet it has gears ;)
[/quote]I reckon I could manage a 3.5k Fixed wheel bike, provided I get my favourite gay designer to help me out.[/quote]
look makes a track frame worth around $9Gs. i think those corima (sp?) frames also go for that much.
a top of the line set of track wheels will be about $1.5-2Gs
Velocio
rusty
big_daddy_wayne
punkpixel
dubtap
turnpedal
rpm
OCD
Roberto
Object
Platini
TheBrick(Tommy)
kilgore_trout-
Post a reply
About
Tony Malone - Old Kent Road Cycles - his new venture?
Posted by
Yes. I just google Tony Dafoney and Tony Malone. Googling Tony Malone comes up with non slanderous posts from LFGSS and proper things. One thing I would warn against though is defamation. I've chosen the English version because it's more appropriate to the circumstances. The Scots Law version is far less convaluted though. Take note.
"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
The allowable defences against libel are:
Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defence fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defence to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages. A statement quoting another person cannot be justified merely by proving that the other person had also made the statement: the substance of the allegation must be proved. The defence fails if the statement concerns spent convictions.
Fair Comment: the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.
Privilege: the defendant's comments were made in Parliament or under oath in court of law or were an accurate and neutral report of such comments. There is also a defence of 'qualified privilege' under which people, who are not acting out of malice, may claim privilege for fair reporting of allegations which if true were in the public interest to be published."