Michael Jackson moderation

[RachelMumsnet]

Hi there
As you can imagine we've had a few complaints this morning about some of the comments and allegations made against MJ. Our policy normally is not to delete posts on the grounds of distaste as what is distasteful to one is another person's idea of humour, however in this situation, given that someone has just died, we're finding it hard to just leave things. So we thought we'd ask you. Do you think comments such as 'I hope he burns' and the onslaught of MJ jokes should be deleted or left in the name of free speech? Let us know your thoughts.
Thanks
MNHQ

i think the bad taste jokes should be removed.

Because that is the nature of this board, morningsun, and emotive topics like this have come up before, Madeleine McCann and Jade Goody threads most recently, and the line has always been that so long as the comment is not personally attacking a particular poster or potentially libellous it stands.

Because this is a self-moderating board for the most part.

Agree with Fimbo, and I agree a little bit more with PortandLemon.

I'm a little suprised that mnhq doesn't already have a one thread policy for when a celebrity snuffs it. When I woke up this morning and heard the news my second thought on the subject was "Lordy, mn will go all Moo Baa La La La for a couple of days".

No to censorship

Yes to one thread

please

I think any jokes about the alleged child abuse should be deleted as they would not be acceptable in any context.

I also think any comments which directly state he was a child abuser should be deleted since this was never proven.

Other tasteless comments [shrug] leave them to be argued over.

Yes a celebrity deaths topic would be good.

Yes, SD, I assumed the usual rules about direct attacks and libel would still stand.

I didn't know you couldn't libel the dead! Of course, if the conspiracy theorists are correct and he has "dropped out" of public life to live on his private island, then MN would be in an interesting legal position!

Very dangerous precedent indeed to start deleting....(Babycentre are deleting everything which is remotely negative, but their CMs don't seem to have realised that you can't libel the dead)

We are grown ups. My opinion, had it been asked of MJ yesterday, hasn't changed. Unlike the multitudes who are suddenly "devastated" and his numero uno supporters.

One thread please.

dittany, that has been tried before. The s always end up on the s thread.

As one of the ones who reported two posts last night I do think they should be deleted. Calling him evil and a paedo won't achieve anything and let's not forget that whatever your opinion of him he was never found guilty. It has shown me a side of several posters that I am shocked at tbh, a bunch of supposedly mature women making sick jokes about someone who's just died.

Jokes about child abuse have no place on MN and should be deleted. The strike too close to home for some posters.

The rest of the discussion should stay. We cannot delete and moderate what people around us in the pub/office/school gate say so why should we attempt to do so on MN?

FFS he's one person, how come we are allowed to liberally take the pee out of one person, yet when they are dead we suddenly have to give them 'respect'. You can't libel the dead you know?

If you are going to moderate that - why not moderate anything else that doesn't fit into your narrow mind view of what is acceptable. That way the site can morph into Netmums seamlessly and the huns will be happy.

Sorry but the only reason I'm on here is you aren't all up yourselves like some other sites.

Agree there should only be one thread. At the same time though, I do find it incredibly distasteful that people should be proclaiming him to have been an evil paedophile. The guy's dead, you'd think people could leave him alone now. I wasn't a huge fan or anything, I just think that to badmouth someone who has died is disrespectful and unneccessary.

OK I'll now be honest about why this has annoyed me so much. I have adopted two abused children and the remarks are way way too out of line - you lot are parents supposedly?

I think the comments re the Mc Canns were libellous ~ but more difficult to sue anonymous posters hence the cowardliness.

Some of you are obsessed by the reputation of mumsnet as opposed to netmums and other sites as if this is more important than basic respect for others.

BTW if you are going to do a celebrity deaths topic, can it be called Celeb stiffs please?

MNHQ should take whatever action they feel they need to do to protect their site - I think bad-taste jokes about child abuse come under that banner.

In any case, more moderation now would be a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I think the only real concern with discussing MJ's personal life all over the place, and allegations made within, is that it will attract an unhealthy interest from outside sources - both professional and criminal. It's an intrigue to both victims and perpetrators and can be distressing all round when discussed within, and alongside other contentious issues.

One thread please so we can hide it. I'd keep the comments in, but I won't read it so can't get worked up by it. I'm not a MJ fan but it sounds like some of the comments are getting really nasty so I prefer to avoid threads like that.

Dittany why on earth would you want to pay your respects on Mumsnet though - surely he has his own website?

Obviously posts that leave mn open to legal challenge should be removed but other than that I feel quite outraged by the idea of moderating mn. It would be like someone interrupting a conversation between friends and demanding that statements are retracted.

There are quite often comments that I find offensive but I don't need protecting from them and I'm sure others don't too.

I do feel very sorry for those saddened today, especially as they can't mourn without also having to hear the allegations, they are repeated with every new bulletin I've heard. But censorship - no.

I think that comments such as 'I hope he burns' should be deleted. Because it's a very strong, direct insult. No matter what he may or may not have done, he was someone's son, someone's brother, someone's father, someone's uncle.

I don't care about the crass jokes, or debating as to whether he was a paedo or not, these things are out in the open anyway. But very direct, very strong insults are not on. For the simple reason that they are hateful comments.

Diversionary link

Was listening to the songs on the radio and thinking what a damaged person he was and what a non-childhood he had. I suppose that makes me agree with Rhubarb that the really foul ill-wishing, the abuse should be deleted. debates about what he was or wasn't - fine.