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

One thread.

No mass deletions.

If particular posts are reported, then let MN judge if they should go - I agreed there should be some limits but the really extreme posts will always be reported by someone.

Please MN, not two threads - as Slubber said, the end up on the thread and everyone gets annoyed.

I would leave MN if censorship started creeping in.

The self-moderating aspect is why I'm here.

Free speech does include opinions that some may find offensive - that's the whole point! If we only allow fluffy, non-controversial opinions it ain't free speech. Sheesh.

And who gets to decide what is offensive and what is fair comment? You, me, someone else?

MJ was a highly controversial person. Hardly news that many people despised him, just as many people adored him. Death doesn't change that.

Agree with edam. As much as I dislike some of the comments that are in bad taste, censorship is not good and limits the opportunities for good debate.

Personally I think you should leave it. We are all grown ups and if we are upset by something we dont have to read it.

If you delete distastefull posts we could have an empty board!

Before 10am this morning I had been sent 2 MJ jokes, they werent particularly funny just someones idea of being funny.
Laughter gets some people through alsorts of sad situations.

But if you verbally abuse someone on Mumsnet, it gets deleted. Why can't it be the same with others? If someone tells me to fuck off, I can report it and it will be seen as a personal attack. If someone posts about wanting MJ to burn in hell, surely that should be treated the same?

How far do you take free speech on an internet forum? After all, this is a PUBLIC forum, googleable, it's not like a private convo.

One thread for music, one for other stuff and the rest deleted.

I think it is in poor taste to leave the yippee the peado is dead type posts, a yippee the n*gger is dead post would not be tolerated.

I think some of the things said have been far worse then things said about SWMNBN and look where that ended up.

I think the fact that the "music" thread had 18 posts on it (last time I looked) while the other 46 threads are literally self-combusting with traffic says it all really.....

One thread. For the friends, the foe and the don't give a fvcks who are wondering why everyone else does.

What Dittany says - two threads one for sympathy and one for debate about the ethics/morality stuff about grief for a possible abuser.

If people wish to make themselves look foolish and ignorant as well as hugely lacking in compassion by making unpleasant jokes, let them. Censorship will not change attitudes.

46 threads

Well, slight hyperbole there....in keeping with the comments on most of them...but there probably will be 46 if HQ don't corral them all together!

so long as it isn't in the thread title, then I can choose not to open any of the MJ threads and therefore not be potentially offended.

If any of the thread TITLES contain defamatory or really distasteful material then I think those should be moderated/deleted/moved to somewhere I can't see them in Active convos.

Can a deceased person's estate/family sue for defamation of character?

If Michael Jackson were still alive a lot of those comments would have to be deleted on the basis they are libellous (he was never convicted of anything.)

Therefore I think they should be deleted, and not treated as any less libellous just because he's dead...

don't be ridiculous km he is dead

In 2007 the government were looking at extending the libel laws to cover dead people (thus meaning you can't speak ill of the dead) but I don't know if this went through or not.

Personally I agree that if any comment would have been libellous 2 days ago, it should be deleted now.

So, what is the verdict MNHQ?

Isn't THIS thread just degenerating and giving rise to the same issues that MNHQ were talking about? I, for one, have had enough- nice to see how the witch hunt develops....

Do you know what, I find the, 'I don't give a fuck and you're a nutter to do so' the most offensive of all.

I have no feelings on the subject of MJ one way or another though I always try to be measured when someone has died.

My point is, if you're a grief groupie then go for it, OTOH, if you feel, like kerry that he was a bad 'un then feel free to express that too but please please don't lurk and post type comments because you think it's cool.

decision. I should be given the power to wield the 'delete' button axe. That's only fair, I think.

myredcardigan at the end of the day even the lurkers shouldn't be censored as they are not hurting anyone.

MNHQ time to sort this out please

Pan that was out of order(yes I have reported)

You can't libel the dead, no.

MNHQ - this is definitely going to go for weeks. 'Sright to make a decision soon about restricting numbers of threads a la MCCann, or having a degree of censorship, or a bit of both. Laws of libel in this country seems a pretty good guide??