- This topic has 34 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
This Peter Thomas bloke is funny, where can I read more of his work?
Regarding the topic, I think it depends on how you was brought up and the area you was brought up in regards to your views on freedom of speech.
I think posh people or those brought up in agriculture backgrounds are more sensative to people calling them names as they are secluded from the rest of the world and see the same faces day in day out and don’t have much life expierance.
This Peter Thomas bloke is funny, where can I read more of his work?.
Presumably he’s RP now: promotion from 15 years hard labour on the RPW/SLW Weekender
Entertaining writer actually, though always of no importance, or any consequence
If he thinks forums such as this one are bad, he should read some of the comments on the RP site. It’s like the reject bin of a Primark factory – lots of empty pockets.
Anyway, don’t mind me, I’m off to take a DNA test, I think Peter Thomas might be my Dad.
Having the First Amendment drilled into my head from an early age makes this argument look a bit silly. Anyway, this is legally a non-issue in the USA because
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally immunizes from liability parties that create forums on the Internet in which defamation occurs from liability for statements published by third parties. This has the effect of precluding all liability for statements made by persons on the Internet whose identity cannot be determined.
However, those in the UK are "publishing" every post and are subject to the same standards as print media.
The laws of libel and defamation will treat a disseminator of information as having "published" material posted by a user and the onus will then be on a defendant to prove that it did not know the publication was defamatory and was not negligent in failing to know: Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd (1977) 2 All ER 566; Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library Ltd (1900) 2 QB 170; Emmens v Pottle & Ors (1885) 16 QBD 354;
So Mr. Thomas is wrong about forums posters being immune from prosecution. He’s free to go about suing the empty vessels, assuming he can actually come up with a case that wouldn’t be laughed out of the courtroom.
I find that more of the sniping and gossip on forums are aimed towards fellow posters rather than the trainers/jockeys/presenters/horses. I haven’t seen anything that would count as outright boldfaced lying on TRF. When there is outrage it is usually warranted. Cormack has done an excellent job of repelling the trolls and troublemakers without infringing on our right to kvetch.
Fair play to Peter Thomas – he’s answered my comments on his blog with the following-
Cormack, I concede I’ve tarred rather too indiscriminately. The Racing Forum is a cut above most and rather less prone to allowing the ravings of the unhinged to go unchecked. My apologies.
Apology accepted Peter and very much appreciated. Thank you for that.
I feel bad now Drone for having been unable to resist that juicy lugworm. I did try, you’ll see by the uncustomary lateness of my post last night that I was eyeing it up for some time before finally the temptation became too much.
Miss W – I see the case law quoted is from 1977. The internet was a mere twinkle in an eye at that point. Are there any more recent precedents in the US or UK? Wit?
When I first joined TRF, one of the earliest threads was about an piece written that week by one Peter Thomas about the Aga Khan.
A then member kindly posted me the article as I’d missed it.
The Racing Post thousand worder – a celebrity puff piece modelled on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" – immediately prompted the Muslim spiritual leader to instruct m’learned friends.
A sly masterpiece of gossip, rumour and innuendo, the article nearly cost the Racing Post a crippling sum and Mister Thomas his beloved job. Ooops. I believe apologies were offered and accepted.
So when I read the pious Mister Thomas accuse us plebian forumites of salacity and other nefarious misdeeds, there’s a glint in my eye.
Lol brilliant Post Max i never knew about the Aga Khan article.
I also see he is sucking his beloved nose up to JP McManus like his fellow Racing post writer Brough Scott in that shocking article last year about how the man plans a gamble [deleted]
Racing Post bring Journalism into disrepute
RIGITS – In an act of unpredented irony you’ve forced my hand into having to delete some of your comments (I’ve pm’d why). Cormack
Fair play to Peter Thomas – he’s answered my comments on his blog with the following-
Cormack, I concede I’ve tarred rather too indiscriminately. The Racing Forum is a cut above most and rather less prone to allowing the ravings of the unhinged to go unchecked. My apologies.
Apology accepted Peter and very much appreciated. Thank you for that.
I feel bad now Drone for having been unable to resist that juicy lugworm. I did try, you’ll see by the uncustomary lateness of my post last night that I was eyeing it up for some time before finally the temptation became too much.
Miss W – I see the case law quoted is from 1977. The internet was a mere twinkle in an eye at that point. Are there any more recent precedents in the US or UK? Wit?
I think Peter’s comments apply to a majority of punters some like to vent their anger at picking losers, and some think that everything twisted or corrupt when they do lose.
Fair play to Peter Thomas – he’s answered my comments on his blog with the following-
Cormack, I concede I’ve tarred rather too indiscriminately. The Racing Forum is a cut above most and rather less prone to allowing the ravings of the unhinged to go unchecked. My apologies.
Apology accepted Peter and very much appreciated. Thank you for that.
I feel bad now Drone for having been unable to resist that juicy lugworm. I did try, you’ll see by the uncustomary lateness of my post last night that I was eyeing it up for some time before finally the temptation became too much.
Miss W – I see the case law quoted is from 1977. The internet was a mere twinkle in an eye at that point. Are there any more recent precedents in the US or UK? Wit?
The Defamation Act of 1996 clarified things:
Defamation actions in relation to the Internet have so far involved libel. Libel must be widely ‘published’. You could libel someone using electronic networks by:
* Sending an email, or an email attachment, where that email is widely posted or forwarded;
* Making material available via a web page;
* Posting to an email list or newsgroup; or
* Streaming audio or video via the Net.Anyone who actively transmits defamatory material is liable as part of any legal action. Most standard contracts for Internet services include conditions relating to defamation.
The 1996 Act creates a category of ‘special publisher’, where;
* the material transmitted is passed automatically by electronic systems without their involvement; or
* they are only the suppliers of the equipment or systems that enable publishing or distribution.The Act also outlines the framework for prosecuting cases of alleged defamation, as well as various defences for anyone prosecuted along with the author of the material. To successfully defend against prosecution you must show that:
* You were not the author, editor or publisher of the material;
* That you had taken ‘reasonable care’ to prevent the publication of any defamatory material; and
* That you did not know, or had reason to believe, that the material was defamatory, and that your transmission did not contribute to the construction of the defamatory material; or
* The reputation of the ‘defamed’ person is such that the material could not conceivably change the average person’s views on them.So far this has not changed, despite criticisms from civil liberties groups and new legislation drafted by various MPs.
A few precedents:
In 2006 a woman was ordered to pay 10,000 pounds in damages for comments on a Yahoo groups site.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 … ews.uknews
A 2007 case brought the users of a sports message board against the Sheffield football club. The club won.
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/ro … ansite.htmIn the US, the courts are generally very reluctant to infringe on First Amendment rights, so even with the Patriot Act there must still be a "clear and present danger". Without this danger, court cases brought against individual users have resulted in immunity being upheld, just like most court cases against journalists and authors.
I think he refers mainly to the Betfair Forum which is a completely different sort of thing to the more considered forums, such as this place, Talking Horses and Neigh.
I find the Betfair Forum daft
A view from S Africa:
I think he refers mainly to the Betfair Forum which is a completely different sort of thing to the more considered forums, such as this place, Talking Horses and Neigh.
I find the Betfair Forum daft
This is a small example of the "opinions as facts" trap and what people make up as "facts only in their heads" problem. If the author and Betfair were so petty minded they could sue you and TRF for damages in writing the above.
Anyone reading the article can see clearly that he refers to "You only need to look on racing-related internet forums to see the kind of stuff I’m talking about."
Betfair is not mentioned, which means it is not referred to.
Forums is plural so he is not inferring mainly one. Betfair covers the whole field of sports, it is not classifiable as "racing-related".There are some good threads on Betfair and some on TRF – they are no different in that respect – all depends wholly on the customer generated content. It also depends on your particular interests and on any forum it may be only 5%, say, that is ever of any particular interest.
What forums might have to worry about is accepting those that Betfair have already banned.
I do envy Thomas, though. No-one serious ever reads fora. Look at Paul Roy. He’s been hammered on here for a year – positively battered, with good reason and
for
good reasons – and he doesn’t even know we exist.
Rod Street too. Despite being paid £3.5m of forumites money to do little more than rearrange the deckchairs, he won’t even answer a forumite’s questions on Twitter.
There was a letter in the Racing Post on Tuesday which said exactly what we’ve spent a year saying about racing and 60,000 plus people will have read it. It was a good, strong letter but no different from some of the posts written by the membership on here.
I’m surprised Thomas and his ilk worry. Print journalists have got the box seat, will probably always have the box seat, and because of that, in the end, I find his criticisms little more than bluster and cant.
- Total Posts 17716
I wouldn’t be too sure that TRF opinions don’t get through to the High and Mighty who seem to be above the battle.
Paul Roy may be the exception (blissfully impervious to criticism of his double standards, airily dismissive of even James Given’s mild anecdote) but I reckon Mr Street for one does keep moles to report on Public Opinion – which certainly does include the more articulate threads and posters who stimulate the rest of us here.
My gut feeling (unsupported by evidence!) is that a well-argued post here can make bigger waves than any letter lost in the small print of the industry rag, with its limited circulation.
I see Thomas has not responded to the readers questions.
Is the Racing Post as one person said on another forum
"Declaring war on their own readers"
First paper to do so in history
- Total Posts 17716
You’ll love this, Ruby.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/20/racing-post-paul-haigh-resignation
As the RP has a circulation of arond 45,000, and there are c9,000 betting shops each buying multiple copies, just who do you think their customers are?
Cheers Reet i had read about that before.
Oh yes Bruce Millington an editor for a paper such as the Racing Post must involve finding the best place to put bookmakers advertising rather than actually evaluate the piece’s of work they right about especially since the now start to use old stories and quote all their stories from a press release.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.