[dubious1977]

I had occasion to respond to postings on the BBC Cycling Message Board re Lance Armstrong yesterday. My response was subsequently removed, and I received the following email:

ear BBC Community member,

Thank you for contributing to a BBC community site. Unfortunately we've had to
remove your content below because it contravened one of our House Rules.

Postings to BBC messageboards will be removed if they:

*Break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity. This includes
defamation and contempt of court.

You can find out more about Defamation at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/HouseRules-Defamation

Please do not reply to this email because your response will not be read. If you
have any questions, please consult our FAQs page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/606/5257104.stm
from where you can also access a feedback form.
You can read the BBC messageboards House Rules in full here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/n...use_rules.html

Please be careful when you copy the text of someone else’s message into your
post. If their posting is subsequently removed, your posting may also have been
removed, as it contained a copy of their failed text.

If you can rewrite your contribution to remove the problem, we'd be happy for
you to post it again.

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may
have action taken against their account.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/n...ing_rules.html

Regards,

The BBC Communities Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/

URL of content (now removed):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/F104070...&post=65130442

Subject:
Lance Armstrong

Posting:
Armstrong clean? How is it possible for a clean rider to beat everyone else, who
were drug cheats? The fact that epo was found in his sample from the 1999 Tour
appears to have passed the Lance apologists by...

This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received
it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose
the information in any way, and notify us immediately. The contents of
this message may contain personal views which are not the views of the
BBC, unless specifically stated.

What a disgrace! Nothing in my email was factually incorrect. You may disagree with my views on the LA, but that doesn't excuse our leading media organisation, who I pay for through my license fee by the way, censoring my views.

I'm speechless. Has anyone else had a similar experience?

[Dr. Jan Itor]

They're not censoring your views so much as protecting you, and more importantly to them the BBC itself, from potential libel action. I'll admit I don't know much about it, but I remember that there were claims that the tests were flawed scientifically. They may not have been flawed, but the claims are presumably enough for the BBC to be uncomfortable with your post. I understand your frustration, but given the size and prestige of the BBC they are always going to err on the side of caution.

[CLL Dodge]

Maybe stick "allegedly" in there somewhere and you are covered.

[John_Elway]

Originally Posted by BBDodge

Maybe stick "allegedly" in there somewhere and you are covered.

I agree

[Darren Lethem]

Originally Posted by BBDodge

Maybe stick "allegedly" in there somewhere and you are covered.

No you aren't. That's a popular phalicy started by Have I Got News For You. It wouldn't change it.

PS, this should be in Broadcasting

[CXC3000]

The BBC Message Board (for anything) is the worst one on the 'net.

Any little thing you say that they don't agree with, you're gonna get censored. It seems it's run by the worst type of PC twits.

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by Dr. Jan Itor

They're not censoring your views so much as protecting you, and more importantly to them the BBC itself, from potential libel action.

Originally Posted by CXC3000

The BBC Message Board (for anything) is the worst one on the 'net. Any little thing you say that they don't agree with, you're gonna get censored. It seems it's run by the worst type of PC twits.

Hmm. I wonder which of these is closest to the truth

[The Phazer]

I would be very surprised if the DS mods don't remove the first post either. It's clearly libellous.

Phazer

[Mickey S]

Originally Posted by dubious1977

What a disgrace! Nothing in my email was factually incorrect. You may disagree with my views on the LA, but that doesn't excuse our leading media organisation, who I pay for through my license fee by the way, censoring my views.

Your post was potentially libellous, and probably posted only with the intention of stirring up trouble and controversy. It added nothing to the discussion.

The fact that you pay your licence fee does not give you the right to post whatever you like on BBC's message boards, any more than paying your council tax gives you the right to piss in the library.

[Mimizuku no Lew]

Originally Posted by CXC3000

The BBC Message Board (for anything) is the worst one on the 'net.

You've obviously never visited Apple's forums.

[iain]

Originally Posted by dubious1977

I had occasion to respond to postings on the BBC Cycling Message Board re Lance Armstrong yesterday. My response was subsequently removed, and I received the following email:

ear BBC Community member,

Thank you for contributing to a BBC community site. Unfortunately we've had to
remove your content below because it contravened one of our House Rules.

Postings to BBC messageboards will be removed if they:

*Break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity. This includes
defamation and contempt of court.

You can find out more about Defamation at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/HouseRules-Defamation

Please do not reply to this email because your response will not be read. If you
have any questions, please consult our FAQs page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/606/5257104.stm
from where you can also access a feedback form.
You can read the BBC messageboards House Rules in full here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/n...use_rules.html

Please be careful when you copy the text of someone else’s message into your
post. If their posting is subsequently removed, your posting may also have been
removed, as it contained a copy of their failed text.

If you can rewrite your contribution to remove the problem, we'd be happy for
you to post it again.

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may
have action taken against their account.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/n...ing_rules.html

Regards,

The BBC Communities Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/

URL of content (now removed):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/F104070...&post=65130442

Subject:
Lance Armstrong

Posting:
Armstrong clean? How is it possible for a clean rider to beat everyone else, who
were drug cheats? The fact that epo was found in his sample from the 1999 Tour
appears to have passed the Lance apologists by...

This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received
it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose
the information in any way, and notify us immediately. The contents of
this message may contain personal views which are not the views of the
BBC, unless specifically stated.

What a disgrace! Nothing in my email was factually incorrect. You may disagree with my views on the LA, but that doesn't excuse our leading media organisation, who I pay for through my license fee by the way, censoring my views.

I'm speechless. Has anyone else had a similar experience?

i'm no legal expert, but is the answer :

'anyone who has posted similarly libellous comment'?

Iain

[GH Online]

I had a post removed under the "break the law/defamation" clause because I dared to suggest that Fearne Cotton's career had only advanced to where it is now by virtue of the fact she is a distant relative of former BBC1 controller Bill Cotton.

It seems the BBC didn't like having one of their darlings criticised and the moderators failed to reply when asked why my post was deemed defamatory.

[Mickey S]

Originally Posted by GH Online

I had a post removed under the "break the law/defamation" clause because I dared to suggest that Fearne Cotton's career had only advanced to where it is now by virtue of the fact she is a distant relative of former BBC1 controller Bill Cotton.

It seems the BBC didn't like having one of their darlings criticised and the moderators failed to reply when asked why my post was deemed defamatory.

Do you really need to ask why your post was deemed defamatory?

[GH Online]

Considering much more obviously inflammatory material has been allowed, yes.

[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by GH Online

I had a post removed under the "break the law/defamation" clause because I dared to suggest that Fearne Cotton's career had only advanced to where it is now by virtue of the fact she is a distant relative of former BBC1 controller Bill Cotton.

It seems the BBC didn't like having one of their darlings criticised and the moderators failed to reply when asked why my post was deemed defamatory.

I'm not surprised, did you get booted off as well?

[Mickey S]

Originally Posted by GH Online

Considering much more obviously inflammatory material has been allowed, yes.

There's a very important difference between "inflammatory" and "defamatory".

[The Phazer]

Originally Posted by GH Online

Considering much more obviously inflammatory material has been allowed, yes.

Inflammatory /= defamatory.

Honestly, many internet forums would have IP banned you for writing such a thing.

Phazer

[GH Online]

Originally Posted by The Phazer

Inflammatory /= defamatory.

Honestly, many internet forums would have IP banned you for writing such a thing.

So then, why were jibes about a continuity announcer's parentage, comparing his line of work to cancer and name-calling of other BBC figures allowed?

The POV mods are a law unto themselves and incredibly inconsistent.

[The Phazer]

Originally Posted by GH Online

So then, why were jibes about a continuity announcer's parentage, comparing his line of work to cancer and name-calling of other BBC figures allowed?

The POV mods are a law unto themselves and incredibly inconsistent.

Name calling is unplesant, but not actually libellous. Suggesting somebody only got their job because of family connections IS libellous.

Having said that, POV is moderated reactively, so if you've seen a post that hasn't been pulled it's probably because nobody has reported it.

Phazer

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Some people's grasp of the law is really quite scary

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Originally Posted by GH Online

So then, why were jibes about a continuity announcer's parentage, comparing his line of work to cancer and name-calling of other BBC figures allowed?

That's not libelous.

You need to be careful when questioning a continuity announcers professionalism though

[GH Online]

Well since I never have, I have nothing to worry about!

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Originally Posted by GH Online

Well since I never have, I have nothing to worry about!

No grovelly apologies to offened continuity announcers from you then?

[ShiftyDundee]

I used to post a lot on the 'Have your Say' section of the news site but gave it up when it became more and more like 'Have Your Say (as long as you tow the line)'.

[blueblade]

The BBC were right IMO. I think your message was libellous.