Submission + - Paper's legal threats shut down community forums
Linker3000 writes: "When the Irish local newspaper "Mayo Echo" published an article (readable online as a set of PDFs through the link) referring to gays as "perverts", it sparked lively debate in the forums at castlebar.ie , one of the region's most active online communities, but things took a turn for the worse when the paper's editor objected to some of the comments and contacted the site's editors. Under threat of legal action, the site's editors bowed to pressure and all material referring to the Mayo Echo was removed and an apology published, but then the newspaper's editor decided to not accept the apology and is maintaining his threat of legal action.
In light of this, the entire castlebar.ie site has been shut down and replaced with a one page commentary [Coral Cache] on the situation, stating: "...The view of the moderators was that it is no longer possible to have a reasonably robust discussion where opinions are expressed such as people stating that they do not like the slant of a particular article or newspaper as in this case without opening themselves up to legal action. The bulletin boards were effectively the heart of the site generating the bulk of over 3.8 million hits to Castlebar.ie last month for example.
Castlebar.ie has therefore ceased operating as a direct result of this ongoing threat of legal action and the possibility that under the current Irish legal system the same thing could happen at any stage. It is no longer possible to run a voluntary website such as Castlebar.ie on a server based in Ireland regardless of where the moderators actually live..."
Regrettably it's not possible to see any of the allegedly offending forum material (unless someone wants to unearth cached copies!?), but according to one moderator, although some of the reaction to the newspaper's article were 'passionate' — on both sides of the argument — all material specifically referred to in the newspaper's correspondence was removed upon request.
Is shutting down the entire site a wise precaution or totally unnecessary and extreme? And how does the editor of the Mayo Echo — a member of the estate that champions 'freedom of the press' — justify the threat of legal action against public commentary on one of their published articles, especially since the site's editors more than complied with the takedown request irrespective of whether they were obliged to or not?"
In light of this, the entire castlebar.ie site has been shut down and replaced with a one page commentary [Coral Cache] on the situation, stating: "...The view of the moderators was that it is no longer possible to have a reasonably robust discussion where opinions are expressed such as people stating that they do not like the slant of a particular article or newspaper as in this case without opening themselves up to legal action. The bulletin boards were effectively the heart of the site generating the bulk of over 3.8 million hits to Castlebar.ie last month for example.
Castlebar.ie has therefore ceased operating as a direct result of this ongoing threat of legal action and the possibility that under the current Irish legal system the same thing could happen at any stage. It is no longer possible to run a voluntary website such as Castlebar.ie on a server based in Ireland regardless of where the moderators actually live..."
Regrettably it's not possible to see any of the allegedly offending forum material (unless someone wants to unearth cached copies!?), but according to one moderator, although some of the reaction to the newspaper's article were 'passionate' — on both sides of the argument — all material specifically referred to in the newspaper's correspondence was removed upon request.
Is shutting down the entire site a wise precaution or totally unnecessary and extreme? And how does the editor of the Mayo Echo — a member of the estate that champions 'freedom of the press' — justify the threat of legal action against public commentary on one of their published articles, especially since the site's editors more than complied with the takedown request irrespective of whether they were obliged to or not?"
