![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 54 to 78 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:25:36
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT- » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:39:33
Lou you still haven't addressed much of what I have said or asked and I imagine we could go around and around but it boils down to...it would be my house my property and thus MY call not my guests. So I WOULD decide what I would do or not do with that sign :)
> F4MT,
> You wrote,[...I... would allow my guests...deal with the issues themselves...].
> In my post to you , I had asked if you would allow a guest to humiliate another guest. Are you saying , then, that you would not intercede and allow a possible confrontation to go on that could lead to assult and then you would try to evict the"slap happy" guest?
> Let us go further into this situation in your home. If the guest then made a sign that ridiculed another guest, perhaps having the poster libled with defaming epithets, and staked it in the front lawn where 100s of cars went bye per hour, would you allow the sign to remain in the front lawn for all the people that could pass bye to see?
> If you could reply to the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:27:55
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-puf/def » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:55:29
Lou I said NO SMOKING on my property at all...none... so whomever smoked would GO ...however I have decent guests who respect me thus nobody smokes when they come HERE.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 13:41:59
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure? » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:20:50
The implimentation of a report button to alert the moderator of a questionable post , is a good idea. It would be easy and effitiant.
Regardless of how a post is alerted to the moderator, I am suggesting that the moderator , then, put one of two symbols after any post is alerted. One symbol would indicate that the post has been alerted to the moderator, but no action will be taken by the moderator. The other could be a symbol that indicates that the post is not acceptable in regards to the guidlines of the forum.
I suggest a small icon of an unusual looking question mark enclosed by brackets such as (?) after the post. That would mean that the moderator did see the request and has approved the post under question by another poster.
The other symbol could be for a post that is not acceptable under the guidlines of the forum. I suggest the following symbol to be used. It is a K with a "not" enclosed by brackets. It could look like this: {~K}.
I think that if the {~K} is described in the FAQ as being a post that could have been determined as unacceptable but the poster left the forum or it is unnecessary to comment on it, that could clear up the matter of posts left without comment that could be considered by some as unacceptable.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 14:30:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Nikkit2-glb » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on December 6, 2004, at 13:09:16
The question of jurisdiction is examined in the following court decision. The decision indicates, at least in the example for Austrailia,, that the jurisdiction is {...where it is read...} vs, [...where it was written...]
Lou
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s745006.htm
Also the case known as Godfrey v. Demon may also have some bearing on jurisdiction.
Posted by Atticus on December 6, 2004, at 23:37:55
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 6:45:27
Lou,
As a former professional journalist with a journalism degree and experience teaching First Amendment law, let me clear up a few things here. First, the First Amendment is there to prevent the GOVERNMENT from censoring privately published material that it finds offensive or embarrassing. The key case here is the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan one, which essentially cemented the idea that a citizen of the United States CANNOT be sued for criticizing the government or government officials on the municipal, county, state, or federal level. And the government CANNOT censor the free speech of citizens. But it has nothing to do with libel cases involving one private citizen criticizing another. There are separate libel laws for those kinds of situations. But here's a quick example of the difference. A public university, which is considered an extension of the state government where it is located, cannot censor the student newspaper. It is a clear First Amendment violation. However, a private university can censor the student newspaper to its heart's content. The First Amendment is primarily designed to facilitate the robust exchange of political and social ideas (including and especially those that the administration may not cotton to) without GOVERNMENTAL interference or repression. That's the theory as outlined by Jefferson, anyway. Certain presidential administrations have shown little understanding or respect for this idea, which is essential to a functioning democracy.
As far a libel law goes, it's extremely complex (takes weeks to teach it), but in regard to media such as newspapers, if an opinion column is factually accurate and located in a section of the newspaper that a "reasonable person" understands to be a forum for the exchange of opinions (i.e., editiorial page, letters column, op-ed page), and not in a section that a reasonable person understands to be a forum for straight factual news (i.e. the front page), then insulting words are free to fly. Happens every day. And satire (i.e. editorial cartoons) has also been considered protected speech since Falwell v. Hustler. In fact, the first editorial cartoon ever published in the U.S. was written and drawn by none other than Ben Franklin.
The U.S. Supreme Court has historically set the bar extremely high for people suing for libel; it considers the protection of unfettered information to be that important. And consider: the Founding Fathers all thought free speech was so critical to the survival of their fledgling experiment in democracy that they made it the FIRST Amendment, not the second or third or fifth. Hope that little bit of info clarifies a few things. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 0:39:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 6, 2004, at 23:37:55
OK, to relate all that blah blah blah in my previous post to the PB site as a whole, to formally accuse someone of libel, first someone (most likely a judge) would have to determine whether this site is one that a "reasonable person" would view as a forum whose purpose is primarily the sharing of opinions. Not such an easy task, as far as I can see. Then second, the nature of the post would have to be examined. Even if this site were to be deemed primarily an aggregation of opinions, and most posters understood it to be so, poster "X" still could not come out and say poster "Y" was a pedophile or something equally unlawful and vile. Poster Y could sue poster X's posterior off and, as a private citizen, would likely win. Dr. Bob would be a big loser in this scenario, too, as someone who repeats or publishes a libelous statement is considered, under the law, as guilty of libel as the person who originally said it. It's called the "Republication rule." However, if X said that Y was a "an abrasive knucklehead," such a statement would almost certainly be judged opinion, and if this is considered an opinion forum, Y would lose if he sued and end up paying X's court costs to boot. My observations lead me to believe that most infractions that draw PBCs or blocks fall into the latter category. They're putdowns, not factual statements accusing someone of malfeasance. (The "dirty words" thing is another matter altogether; just something Bob insists on and that I disagree with, and we "agreed to disagree" on that matter ages ago.) Bottom line: I don't remember ever reading anything that would hold up in a court of law as libel on PB. Make sense? No? Tough. Atticus
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure? » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:20:50
> I do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
I was wondering about that. Is there benefit to keeping it secret? Deputies do what they do in the open... Also, people might be less likely to overdo it...
> You do realize that the occasional curse word would rarely if ever be reported, don't you? :) Which I rather like, but you might not.
>
> DinahIt isn't that they're an issue for me personally, you know... But I've also been thinking about automated asterisking. Maybe it could be an option? So people could turn it off -- but then not be warned before being blocked...
--
> I use to be on The Depression Forum we never knew how certain people were selected they were NOT selected by us..
Just for the sake of discussion, what if deputy administrators were elected?
> I do not see why some view this as the only board they can be on and want to change it so much as to fight over it with you.
>
> Fallen4MyTMaybe they want everyone to benefit from their suggestions? Of course, it could also be issues with authority...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 4:07:14
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
>I've also been thinking about automated asterisking. Maybe it could be an option? So people could turn it off -- but then not be warned before being blocked...
To quote a certain somebody 'technology isn't always the answer'.
Posted by partlycloudy on December 7, 2004, at 6:23:54
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
> Just for the sake of discussion, what if deputy administrators were elected?
>
> BobI don't want to go through another election year until 2008.
Actually, I think an election would be scary and potentially very harmful to those who believe they'd make fine deputies to find that no one voted for them. Let the Great and Wonderful man Behind the Curtain appoint the deputies, just as the Lion got his courage, the Tin Man his heart, and the Scarecrow his brain.
Posted by Dinah on December 7, 2004, at 6:32:18
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
Well, the result of reporting privately rather than publicly would be to create less on board conflict. If you decided to pass on something, it would be no harm no foul. If someone "overdoes it", can't you just tell them so? Reporting it publicly is just likely to escalate a situation until you get to the board.
And I think you're incorrect about deputies. If something fell under the deputy rules I acted openly. But lots of stuff didn't fall under the rather restrictive deputy rules, and I generally emailed you privately about them so as not to escalate on board conflict. And lots of times, people were patient and tolerant and didn't say anything till you came 'round so it worked out for the best. It's not a similar situation, anyway. Unless you give posters blocking powers, you shouldn't expect them to take the heat for publicly complaining unless you also give them the power. You know?
I think if someone overrides automatic asterisking, they shouldn't complain about a block. :) I think that's a fine idea.
Posted by nikkit2 on December 7, 2004, at 6:56:19
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
"> I do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
I was wondering about that. Is there benefit to keeping it secret? Deputies do what they do in the open... Also, people might be less likely to overdo it... "
Can you understand how painful it can be to be held open to public scrutiny when you're posting whilst in pain?
I think a "report" button would be a great idea, where it emails you, but doesn't need to be a post in public.
I'm quite sure I'm not the only one that feels very hurt when my posts are "questioned".. An "off board" way would be alot better, IMNSHO
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:31:43
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 7, 2004, at 6:32:18
> I think an election would be scary and potentially very harmful to those who believe they'd make fine deputies to find that no one voted for them.
>
> partlycloudyI understand, and remember, this is just for the sake of discussion, but OTOH:
1. If someone wouldn't get any votes, it might not be such a good idea for me to appoint them, either. And IMO the vote totals wouldn't have to be public.
2. Deputies do need to be able to accept that people may "vote against" them after they're appointed.
3. Their actions might be more likely to be accepted if they're elected.
--
> Well, the result of reporting privately rather than publicly would be to create less on board conflict... If someone "overdoes it", can't you just tell them so?
>
> lots of stuff didn't fall under the rather restrictive deputy rules, and I generally emailed you privately
>
> DinahHmm, that's true. And other people email me privately, too. And I could apply some sort of 3-complaint rule. And an email system would be easier to set up...
I guess when I did Eating and Politics I forgot that a Complaints board had also been suggested... :-) I suppose this doesn't obviate that...
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 7, 2004, at 8:48:03
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:31:43
Private reporting sounds good to me. Lots of other boards do it that way and it seems to work out just fine.
Although, there should be some mandatory box that asks WHY you are reporting the post. Otherwise, some gooberhead will report every single post every single morning before the school bus picks him up. Ya know?
emmy
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 10:26:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 6, 2004, at 23:37:55
Atticus,
You cited {Falwell v. Hustler}. In that case, there was the additional aspect of the {public figure} of libel. I do not think that that could apply to an internet forum, for the members are not public figures , except perhaps the moderator.
In the Falwell v Hustler case, the U. S. Supreme court decision may be of interest for those here to examine in relation to what some of the justices wrote about the aspect of {intentional infliction of emotional distress}in reagrds to the claimed libel and also what the appellate court wrote in respect to that.
Mr. Flynt and his brother have been tried here in Cincinnati mamy times and the 6th circiut of appeals is here in Cincinnati and Mr. Flynt has stores near here in Monroe, Ohio, ouside the Cincinnati city limits to sell his publications. This brings up the concept of { community standards} and could have a bearing in some respects to internet forums in different jurisdictions.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 11:24:02
In reply to How my previous post might apply to PB, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 0:39:36
Atticus,
You wrote,[...opinions...someone called a person an "abrasive knucklehead"...opinion...].
The forum as an opinion forum can be argumentative for this forum is a mental-health forum with restraints upon accusations, put downs and such and is monitored for such.
One way that a court could look at things in regards to libel is as to if harm is done by what is written. The harm here could be emotional harm rather than economic harm or damage to the reputation of. There could be the aspect of intentional affliction of emotional distress on account that this forum is a mental health forum which I believe constitutes different examinations by a court verses a non- mental health forum.
One of the tests that,IMO, a court could use, depending on the jurisdiction, is if the libel was the proximate cause of the emotional harm, and I do not think that the statement has to be considered to be libelious as to the standard to a non-mental health forum. The case in point here is the post calling another here a 'fruitcake" and an "idiot". These terms may not be actionable in a court for libel per se, but they could, IMO, be actionable in a court as to them being writtin on a mental-health forum. There is a poster as I remember here that wrote that he/she was called an "idiot" on another forum and as I remember it was something that the poster wrote was not liked by him/her. I will do a search for that post.
The determination of such could be made by a jury, not a psychiatrist. The plaintiff's lawyer could argue that his/her clientsuffered emotional harm and that could be enough for a sympathetic jury to render an adverse verdict toward the defendant even though the defendant's lawyer could probably argue that being called a "fruitcake" and an "idiot" {...happens every day...]. What if someone called an Orthodox Rabbi a "pig eater"? It may well be that it happens every day, but to who?
Lou
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 12:35:17
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
I'm not crazy about the idea of a machine deciding where to insert asterisks in my poems. I've been doing it myself all along and never gotten into any hot water for my decisions. If I use profanity, it's to add a certain piquance to the work and an authenticity to the punk lifestyle frequently portrayed. We don't exactly talk like people in a Jane Austin novel. Would I be able to turn the automatic censor off and continue to handle the insertion of asterisks myself? I've posted more than 50 poems and short stories, and I haven't f*cked up yet. See? ;) Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 12:55:27
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 10:26:16
Lou,
You're intertwining two separate posts here. I really just tossed in Falwell v. Hustler as an additional example of how opinion speech was protected, even if it was satire. Satire is typically so outrageous that a "reasonable person" wouldn't mistake it for factual accusations. This is essentially the argument that won the day for Larry Flynt. Falwell's status as an "all-purpose public figure" did mean he would have to prove "actual malice" rather than merely "negligence" -- and actual malice (deliberately publishing something with knowledge that it is untrue or with "reckless disregard for the truth") is indeed a much higher hurdle for a plaintiff to clear. But that really wasn't a major factor in the justices' opinions. Satirists readily acknowledge that their work isn't factually true -- it is over-the-top hyperbole deliberately meant to sting the subject. I was a professional editorial cartoonist for a newspaper with a circulation of about 70,000 for years as a side job, and I DID mean to make people laugh at the politicians or social positions I lampooned. But PB certainly is not a forum for satire in any case. Forget I brought it up, alright? It's not really relevant here. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 11:24:02
Nope, sorry, Lou, libel law just doesn’t work that way. It wouldn’t matter if the derogatory words appeared on an Internet mental-health forum or tumbled from the lips of Bill O’Reilly. Libel is about whether a published statement is TRUE and believable to readers – and if it turns out to be untrue, what were the mitigating circumstances under which the error occurred. It is NOT about words that merely might hurt feelings. Never was, and never will be. Any libel case where the plaintiff is nonplussed over being called an “idiot” or a “fruitcake” is going nowhere fast – no matter how upset the plaintiff is. The judge would give the jury specific instructions as to what constitutes libel and what does not. Sympathetic or not, the members of that jury are bound by law to follow those instructions, or else you end up with a mistrial or strong grounds for an appeal. Unless a “reasonable person” might actually be led to believe by the published work that the person being ridiculed is ACTUALLY a “fruitcake” or is GENUINELY a “pig eater,” you just don’t have a case. You wouldn’t even have a case if someone used that most reprehensible of terms, n****r, to describe an African-American. Name-calling, no matter how vile, doesn’t add up to libel.
All that said, my explanation of libel law was only meant to answer your query about what constitutes libel in the first place, since a number of people here seemed confused regarding the issue. It really has little to do with this site. Dr. Bob HAS made name-calling an offense here, as is his right. I do think he gets carried away with the “profanity” thing (I mean, seriously, “fr*g” is considered profane ?! We used to say that in fourth grade). But he and I hashed that out a while back, and the discussion ended with the classic “Bobism”: “Let’s agree to disagree.”
Which kind of spontaneously leads me to toss out this question to everyone for the fun of it: What’s your favorite Bobism? We could collect them into an online thread on Social called “The Book of Bob.” Atticus
Posted by Toph on December 7, 2004, at 15:21:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
> What’s your favorite Bobism? We could collect them into an online thread on Social called “The Book of Bob.” Atticus
>Can Bob's deferring to another person an explanation the rational for his actions be a Bobism, Atticus? If so, anything by Haim Weinberg is a Bobism.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 18:17:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
>and the discussion ended with the classic “Bobism”: “Let’s agree to disagree.” Which kind of spontaneously leads me to toss out this question to everyone for the fun of it: What’s your favorite Bobism? We could collect them into an online thread on Social called “The Book of Bob.” Atticus
Oh Atticus, you are not allowed to be blocked ever again because you are just too funny! My favourite at the moment is:
'technology is not always the answer'
- though that might not be an exact quote, and I think maybe it is the context or my warped sense of humour that makes that one funny really :-)
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 7, 2004, at 19:13:30
In reply to The Book of Bob » Atticus, posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 18:17:08
My favorite (Thanks Zen)
Please don't accuse anyone here of causing millions to die.
Posted by Jai Narayan on December 7, 2004, at 21:35:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 14:18:31
Once upon a time in a far away country there lived a child who took everything literally.
He was named Bob....
even as a child everyone called him Dr. Bob.
He was a sweet child.
He loved to sit on the gray sidewalk during the day and watch the ants.
If he got bored he would move to his second favorite thing and that was watching the bees.
Next the birds.
Then the stars.
He was always looking.
One day he discovered a box.
It was square and had a long chord.
He took the cord and plugged it into the wall.
Worlds opened up for him.
He was stunned and couldn't look away.
His mother tried to tempt him with delicious food she cooked.
His father offered to play baseball with him.
He could barely answer his parents and they tried to pull him away from the awful box.
Their attempts were futile.
Soon his life was only the box and all the little lines written all over the surface.
He had no real friends.
He only communicated with these virtual people inside the box.
His parents wanted to take him to their family doctor.
But Bob said no.
No I am the doctor.
His parents were gentle people.
They eased away from this little boy who would not leave the box and would not get help.Atticus is this the story you are talking about?
Jai
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 22:43:04
In reply to Re: Bob » Atticus, posted by Toph on December 7, 2004, at 15:21:07
Hi Toph,
I'd think so. I've been treated to a Haim Weinberg reference personally. So it's fair to say that a particular way of responding to someone's post without really responding to the post is Bobistic. ;) Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 22:48:55
In reply to Re: The Book of Bob » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on December 7, 2004, at 19:13:30
LOL. I missed that one! Did Pol Pot used to be a Babbler or something? ;) Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 22:59:49
In reply to I wonda wonda who...WHO wrote the book of Bob?, posted by Jai Narayan on December 7, 2004, at 21:35:36
I'd best refrain from comment on that story. Too many straight lines that could spark a snarky refrain. :) But both you and Susan47 HAVE been punished by Dr. Bob for not covering your "@ss". This leads me to think of the ubiquitous Bobism that begins something like, "I hate to be a prude, but ..." Ta. ;) Atticus, skating on thin ice as usual and groovin' on it
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.