Just a quick note to Otterman
 

No comment on the material points raised in this thread, but:

Otterman is fooling himself if he thinks that the Common Law (and the rest of the British legal system) affords too much protection to freedom of expression.

Unlike our septic friends across the water, there's no constitutional right to freedom of speech in English law. Hence the English laws on libel and slander (defamation to those of us from Down Under) are fairly strict!

Once the moderators of a thread on a recognised website have received a legal complaint, there isn't much they can do but remove any material which may contain a defamatory imputation or else the publishers of the material (which inlcude the owners of the site) become liable for any such defamatory comment.

However, don't disagree that a statement that a thread has been removed as a result of a legal objection (similar to a retraction in a published newspaper) would be appropriate in such a situation.

Cheers

KP

woodpecker
 

An excellent idea woodpecker, hope the mods approve.

:ok:

From my philosophical point of view:
I think the thread should not have been removed. If the lawyers of Ryanair disagree, they are free to post their view on this board. This board is about discussion and opinion. There's i.m.o. a clear disclaimer below each page, this BB is clearly not resposible for the contents of what is posted.

Then again I am unfamiliar with British/Irish law. Maybe it would have been sufficient to remove the name Ryanair from the discussion regarding libel and slander?

From my practical point of view:
I personally don't care too much what happens with Ryanair, and wouldn't be interested in taking any hits from this. This could ofcourse work as a precedent for future disputes.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. If PPRuNe allows defamatory material to remain, it could get sued. And that could be the end of PPRuNe.

There's no such thing as complete freedom of speech, and we would do well to remember it. Danny's long post leaves up and visible everything one needs to know about the incident for the time being.

I am sure you are correct in what you say, but since Ryanair has the possibility to post their own story, I'd expect this BB itself not to be guilty of libel/defamation since it is assisting both sides in expressing opinions.

Yes, the problem is it's the legal point of view that counts and Danny has little practical choice.

As they say, "Trust me, I'm (on this one) a professional" :)
(No, no, not a lawyer, I run a largely web-centred computing and hosting company!)

Cheers,

Rich.

(IMHO) no need to discuss further. Danny has done the sensible thing and the original intention (as I hopefully understand it) has been achieved in that the appropriate authorities are looking at the allegations.

As Danny has said, the outcome will become known - either way - on the BBS. If allegations untrue, then, quite rightly, a post will be made to that effect. If allegations true, then I guess we'll all have a field day.

Personally, I hope it will turn out to be a storm in a teacup, with "European Aviation" coming out "smelling of roses", if not then we will all (by implication) suffer - not just the airline concerned.

I can't believe how naive some of you are being. You cannot post unsubstantiated allegations on the internet and imagine that because the section is called 'Rumours and News' you can say what you like. Libel laws are getting increasingly restrictive, and it will be Pprune as well as the individual poster who carries the can. And if you think you are 'anonymous', then think again, you can be traced, and I know just someone who is likely to set the lawyers onto you! I am frequently astonished at the allegations some people make on this board, and believe a few examples will be made of them soon, and rightly so. Because Pprune would also carry the can, it is only right the owner of the board has the option of censoring. As said, if you don't like it, go elsewhere.....and take your legal complications with you!

There was a recent case of a person being "Slated" on a "Chat Room" taking the "Slater" to Court........AND WINNING.
Rock on Danny :ok:
watp,iktch

Whilst I can see that there is no dount that under the threat of legal action the thread had to be pulled, I have a couple of comments:

If these alleged incidents are proven to be false it certainly does not prove that FR "operate their aircraft to the highest safety standards and regulations", this would apply to any airline. So, Danny, apart from the fact that this is your train set, I do not comprehend why you have made this undertaking?

I think that everybody should perhaps ask themsleves why there are so many of these sorts of allegations made about one particular airline.

exSimGuy

[quote](IMHO) no need to discuss further.[/quote]

Quite the opposite, this most definitely needs to be discussed. Whether censorship is justified or not it must not go unchallenged, lest we should end up in a Totalitarian state, (or maybe even a Theocracy!)

[QUOTE=fmgc]exSimGuy

It's a very common mistake that free speech in a forum means just that. It doesn't. Period. Nothing to do with dictatorship.

Two things to be considered.

First of all, all of us here are guests in this forum, as in any other. The owner of any forum has evey right to remove posts he deems damaging or just not compliant with his policies.

Secondly, any forum owner can and will be held responsible by anyone who feels his rights have been violated by posts in a forum. Therefore, removal of such threads pending investigations is necessary to protect the owner and with him the forum as a whole.

I think Danny has said it clearly and in a very eloquent post. So let's wait and see.

OK, lets not discuss it then!!!:confused: :confused:

Who gives you, ExSimGuy or anybody else for that matter the right to say "no need to discuss further"?

Anyway, AN2, I think that I need to reassert that I fully support Danny's decision lest your post should cause other less fastidious readers such as yourself in misrepresenting what I have said.

Actually, it sounded like an OPEN and DIRECT threat. :=

If you think that anyone wants to be sued for libel, then it means that they work for Private Eye (a satirical magazine, published in the UK) and anyone who wants to keep their hobby and not allow a court judgement to infect the rest of their life, will follow the law of the land.

From a Professional Philosophical point of view,
there is a distinction between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Statements of opinion propose (but, unlike arguments, do not seek to demonstrate) interpretations for facts. For example, an opinion would be, "I like the colour green". (A demonstration would be: when shown photographs of 40 pretty women, each with her eyes colored blue, green and brown, the synapses in the section of my brain associated with pleasure were 200% more active when presented with green eyes. Therefore I like the color green).
A statement of fact makes a claim about external reality. "Yesterday, there was a sea battle".

As pointed out earlier, allegations of fact also have legal significance. This is particularly true in a board like this one which is purportedly by and for professionals, yet anonymous and available to all (Welcome to one of the problems of the internet).

So take safety. A favorite jab against low-cost carriers is that they skimp on safety: or rather, management pressure on cost-savings initiatives often induces other parts of the company to take measures that are detrimental to safety. Is it justified? Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
Making matters worse, there are conspiracy nuts and company axegrinders who routinely post negative material against particular companies, airports, and agencies.

But while this may be a "bull session" for pilots, it is, at least till now, a forum open to all, and occasionally cited explicitly in the press. People are reading these discussions and formulating opinions about who to fly with. Most of the time, you can assume that readers are critical: they know unsubstantiated BS and bitter employees when they see them. But if they get facts -- well, that's watercooler material tomorrow. And for Low Cost Carriers, since Valujet, if not long before, the public has been fed the suspicion that low prices=substandard safety. The most dangerous lies are the lies that support commonly-held beliefs; and, incidentally, the verisimilar is the biggest enemy of the truth.
So any statement claiming a factual incident where a given flight from a given airline busts safety regulations on a given day is going to attract attention. And you can bitch about Ryanair's counter-allegations all you want, but while there's an investigation in process that will determine the facts -- in a legal sense at least -- there's no reason to make statements of fact about the situation without indicating sources.

I still think it stinks that pikeyair threatens legal action......and PPrune has to remove posts...censorship any way you slice it IMHO

I think most of you are completelty missing the point which is without the original post starting the removed thread, there would be no IAA investigation.

Until these matters are brought out into the open, there is no possibility of an investigation. Pprune performs this function flawlessy. Don't believe me? Try making an allegation to any regulator of anything and see how far you get!

You will be fobbed off by a combination of "where's your evidence?", "this is an unfounded allegation", "You are not competent to make such an allegation". Furthermore, if your allegation has some truth in it, and you can be identified by the likes of a Ryanair, there is every chance of getting sued.

One final point. If there is found to be any truth in the allegations (which I am not competent to comment on anyway), it won't leave a mark on Ryanair because no matter what the company culture, it is the Pilot's decision and Ryanair will simply hang those concerned out to dry. This is the nature of the insidious "double bind" problem that can affect people's judgement.

as usual in these kerfuffles, it's Danny's trainset. Don't like it? Airliners.net awaits.

Anyone want to talk about why this seems to be so complicated, this so called investigation:eek: , so the IAA reads PPRuNe and starts an investigation, I had been under the impression that ATC could not deny a landing clearance but in the case of an aircraft landing below published minimums it was automatically reported. :confused:

[quote=Otterman]Sorry but I do have a problem with the removal of the thread (the thread itself being immaterial to me). I think when you go through the posts on pprune, almost nothing meets up to any journalistic standard.

Sorry don't understand what you mean by this Otterman, I though the terms 'journalist' and 'standard' should never appear in the same sentence.