Has Google Ruined NSC?

[dougdeep]

It's a shame I can't call @dougdeep a c*nt without having to use an asterisk.

Name calling? You're hardly popular on here yourself. x

 

[Camicus]

Or just as a thought people could stop making shit up and pretending to be "In the know"

 

[Hillian1]

Name calling? You're hardly popular on here yourself. x

Let it die you sad man.

 

[ewe2]

This situation just shows how serious the problem is at the club,if teams of "legals " are watching our every move,then it seems to me our club is in a mess, and as "customers " at some stage we will need an explanation. The longer this goes on then,the clubs efforts to keep a lid on it will be breached (but not by NSC !!!)

 

[Hillian1]

This situation just shows how serious the problem is at the club,if teams of "legals " are watching our every move,then it seems to me our club is in a mess, and as "customers " at some stage we will need an explanation. The longer this goes on then,the clubs efforts to keep a lid on it will be breached (but not by NSC !!!)

I should think that we are not being "watched" or "monitored" by legal teams but rather people on here are running back to the individuals in question informing them.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I should think that we are not being "watched" or "monitored" by legal teams but rather people on here are running back to the individuals in question informing them.

Are you speculating or know this as absolute fact ?

 

[Hillian1]

Are you speculating or know this as absolute fact ?

I'm speculating that this could be a fact, but possibly isn't.

 

[Acker79]

I'm speculating that this could be a fact, but possibly isn't.

Given it's a current hot button topic among brighton fans, I wouldn't be surprised if someone was charged with checking this site (and probably the argus comments section) every day. Though that's not to say your explanation is wrong, just explaining why I don't think it's unlikely they would be checking.

 

[marshy68]

I do have a question - which if anyone knows the answer would be interesting. I would have thought that if i posted a libelous comment on here it would be me that would be sued and not NSC? For example Sally Berkcow was taken to court for her tweet - not twitter? Just interested to know what the legality is?

 

[dougdeep]

I do have a question - which if anyone knows the answer would be interesting. I would have thought that if i posted a libelous comment on here it would be me that would be sued and not NSC? For example Sally Berkcow was taken to court for her tweet - not twitter? Just interested to know what the legality is?

Good question. Perhaps Bozza could explain.

 

[Puppet Master]

Name calling? You're hardly popular on here yourself. x

Yes he is, he's an integral part of Team CR

 

[Goldstone1976]

I do have a question - which if anyone knows the answer would be interesting. I would have thought that if i posted a libelous comment on here it would be me that would be sued and not NSC? For example Sally Berkcow was taken to court for her tweet - not twitter? Just interested to know what the legality is?

Bozza would be treated as the "publisher", the poster as the author. The publisher usually gets the option to "unpublish" what has been published - hence Bozza taking the site down and stripping it of potentially libellous comments.

 

[El Presidente]

Can we just confirm, after lengthy debate then, that Google has not ruined NSC?

Can I say that I would happily ruin Konnie Huq?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Bozza would be treated as the "publisher", the poster as the author. The publisher usually gets the option to "unpublish" what has been published - hence Bozza taking the site down and stripping it of potentially libellous comments.

That's not really correct. To be treated as a publisher, bozza would have to have advance knowledge of the fact that the poster was going to post this libellous content.

The only way bozza could get into trouble would be if he refused to remove the content even when it was clear that it was libellous.

Now bozza has also said he doesn't want to get to a stage where he is getting court requests to release the details of posters, which is why he took the site down.

Personally I think the legal teams should be acting like all other posters. If they see something dodgy they click the report post button explain why they think it should be removed and let the mods take action.

 

[brighton bluenose]

This is nothing to do with Google.

What "ruins" NSC is people who do not think before they post. You are not talking to your mates in the pub, you are publishing content that can hang around online for years and years.

NSC is an extremely popular site and as such will get noticed more than some blog someone writes that only their Mum reads. Some people just need to engage their brain before they post

Perhaps people out there shouldn't be so sensitive and be able to partake in robust debate - subject to no law being broken of course!!