Interpretations of CA-DOJ Memo (May 9, 2006)

[TheMan]

Several key names are bleeped out unless severely misspelled. Apparently this board was getting a bit too "high profile" (incl posts by myself, I must confess).

Your posts were too high profile? I think you are overrating them. You haven't become too high profile on this board until your name is added to the filters. Bill Wiese isn't in there. Yet

[TheMan]

I call them allisson and ignatus.

Why not assillon and ignance?

[xrMike]

***removed***

EDIT: My bad! It was a mouth-before-brain thing...

[grammaton76]

Ok, guys, don't make me lock this thread.

The deal is this - the 'out of control' stuff was leading to Very Bad Things (tm) for the site.

Do not make comments about named officials which can be viewed as defamatory, slanderous, etc.

You may talk about them, but keep it - for lack of a better description - 'journalistic'. IE, things which you would be perfectly content to say about them in front of a rabid, foaming lawyer who wants nothing more than to press charges on you for defamation of character.

[TheMan]

IE, things which you would be perfectly content to say about them in front of a rabid, foaming lawyer who wants nothing more than to press charges on you for defamation of character.

Wouldn't characterizing a lawyer as rabid and foaming be defamation of character?

[xenophobe]

Wouldn't characterizing a lawyer as rabid and foaming be defamation of character?

Only if he was talking directly about a specific lawyer and couldn't prove it.

[grammaton76]

Wouldn't characterizing a lawyer as rabid and foaming be defamation of character?

Sure, if I said that Jimbo P. Lawyer is rabid and foaming at the mouth, while at the time he's not actually doing so.

But in this case, I'm not describing any particular lawyer. I'm saying that your goal should be to write such that no lawyer, no matter how rabid or foaming, could bring charges.

[TheMan]

No, because truth is a complete defense to a suit for defamation...and character evidence is admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith.

You'd think if truth were a defense for defamation, this board could survive without a filter on Lockyer's name

[grammaton76]

You'd think if truth were a defense for defamation, this board could survive without a filter on Lockyer's name

Not when board members are posting 'satirical conjecture' about his personal life, etc.

It's one thing to stick to the truth; it's another to make other statements for humorous effect. If everyone could be trusted to keep it on the level, I don't think we'd have names in the filter.