| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| Stephen Andrews |
Hi guys. I'm currently working through Module 2 and I'm not sure I agree with some of the points. The module seems to strongly suggest that pre-moderation is the best for protecing yourself legally and "Offers protection for brands against libellous material". I work for a very big forum, and I know they've spent a fortune on very expensive lawyers over the years, Their opinion is that post-moderation is the only way they can protect the site. The theory goes like this... With pre-moderation, you are acknowledging you read every post on the site. You are in a way taking ownership of it as if it were your opinion. The jargon even says you are "approving" the post. You've just made yourself responsible for your members' opinions. With post-moderation, or more specifically, a "report a post" system, you are making it clear in your T&Cs that don't read every post. That there is a very clear reporting and removal procedure. If someone objects to any post on your site you have the argument: "We were not aware of the libellous comment. As soon as it was brought to our attention through our reporting procedure it was immeditately removed", you can also say "As we make it very clear we don't read every post, no reader could infer that we approved, or condoned that opinion." As I understand it, this is a strong legal defence, If you pre-moderate you've lost that legal defence (though I stress I'm not a lawyer. This is just what I understand). |
| Posted 9 years ago #1 |