COMMENT: On the moderation of racist and bigotted comments on blogs Part I

To what extent should bloggers be held responsible (whether legally or morally) for comments left on their blogs? This is an extremely contentious issue, and one I've previously written about in a piece for Crikey which can be found here.

Amateur bloggers (such as yours truly) don't have the time and resoyrces to immediately deal with offensive, defamatory or racist comments. In the case of the Planet Irf blog, the period between offensive comments being posted and removed can be days if not hours. But what about well-resourced blogs?

I now want to explore a few blogs where I've featured from time to time. The first blog I wanted to examine is Tim Blair's blog on the Daily Telegraph website, published by Rupert Murdoch's Nationwide News. The website is owned by News Digital Media Pty Limited.

Paragraph 13 of the website's Terms & Conditions states ...

Contributing Content

13. When you submit content to News in any format, including any text ..., you grant News a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual license to publish that content ...

15. You warrant that you have all of the necessary rights, including copyright, in the content you contribute, that your content is not defamatory and that it does not infringe any law.

16. You indemnify News against any and all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by News as a result of a breach of the above warranty.

These terms don't state that the owner of the site has no liability for comments posted on blogs which are defamatory or infringe anti-discrimination, racial vilification or other laws. Rather, they state that, should a plaintiff commence legal proceedings against News Limited, Nationwide News, the editor, the blogger and/or other entities associated with he website, News Limited can seek indemnity from the person posting the comment.

The publisher's liability in this regard is also affected by the comment publication guidelines which include:

4. News will determine, at its discretion, whether to publish (or remove from a site) any of your content ...

7. News may edit your content in its discretion.

8. You warrant that: ...

(d) your content, your provision of your content to News and the use by News of your content, in each case as contemplated in these terms and conditions, does not breach any law (including laws relating to privacy, intellectual property and defamation) or the rights of any person;

10. On providing your content to News for publication in any media, you indemnify News and its officers, employees and agents against any damage or loss made against or suffered by any of those indemnified arising, in whole or in part, as a result of:
(a) the publication by News or a person permitted by News of your content; or
(b) a breach by you of these terms and conditions.

From all these guidelines, terms and conditions, we can reach the following conclusions:

a. The publishers of the site are legally responsible for comments submitted to and published on blogs.

b. The publishers and any employees responsible for moderating comments, as well as their editor-supervisors, are legally liable for any defamation or other breach of law.

This is the legal liability situation. But what about issues relating to journalism ethics? And balancing freedom of speech with freedom from vilification? What do we make of comments being moderated and allowed onto blogs and stories notwithstanding the fact that they promoting ethnic-based violence?

To be continued ...

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

CRIKEY: New SBS show mired in muslim stereotypes ...

There’s more to the SBS documentary Embedded With Sheik Hilaly than just the documentary itself. The embedded person was 26 year old Dave Zwolenski from Brisbane. Yet Dave was drafted by SBS almost at the last minute.

The original star of the show was to be Melbourne stand-up comic and youth worker Mohammed el-Leissy, formerly of the Fear Of A Brown Planet fame and now about to launch an on-stage comedic gameshow called Who Is Abdul Smith at this year’s Melbourne Fringe Festival. El-Leissy first heard about the proposed documentary via a social networking site. He applied successfully for a role starring in the show, and was flown upto Sydney some 4 times, including a 2-month stint during which he approached various Muslim sects and their leaders. He also visited Camden to visit local Muslims.

El-Leissy told Crikey he’d developed an extensive list of Sydney Muslim contacts which he handed to the producers. The original idea was for El-Leissy to embed himself with more radical imams such as Sheik Abdussalam Zoud.

El-Leissy was to "hang out with rough guys, go on jihad camps and similar stuff". On one occasion, the producers asked him to attend a male-only barbecue where he’d accuse Zoud’s crowd of being sexist before asking why no women were present. El-Leissy refused, believing such questions just played into stereotypes (heck, why can’t a bunch of Aussie blokes have a bbq without sheilas spoiling the fun?). He explained this to the producers, who said that if he couldn’t ask these questions, they had a non-Muslim guy who would. They then sacked El-Leissy.

As it turned out, their Brisbane chap also didn’t get a chance to even appear with Zoud, let alone ask these tough questions of his young male followers. El-Leissy says that Zoud’s crowd wouldn’t touch the show with a 10-foot barge pole.

Still, when you can’t convince anyone to participate in a caricatured picture of Muslims, you can always rely on human headlines like Sheik Hilaly and his interpreter. Their attempts to justify Hilaly’s catmeat comments were just painful to watch, as were the attitudes expressed by other more conservative Muslims on the show.

Narrator Dave said his goal was "to understand what being a Muslim is really like". In relation to issues like marriage and gender relations, I doubt any but the most conservative of culturally Lebanese Muslims would relate to what Dave discovered.

The Age reviewer wasn’t terribly happy with the show accusing its makers of “entrenching prejudices and ignorance”. The tiny number of Hilaly-lovers congregating on this online forum were much more upbeat about the show.

Words Copyright © 2008 Irfan Yusuf

CRIKEY: No prejudice at the Courier Mail, just bloody Muslims ...

On Saturday, the Editor of the Courier Mail David Fagan addressed a Brisbane journalism conference organised by the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA). My notes from the conference show Fagan declaring that newspaper journalism consists of great pictures with good words attached. As if readers want the kind of stuff Little Golden Books were made of. Fagan also declared that his paper was not in the business of inciting prejudice.

On the same day, buried on Page 22 of the Courier Mail, was a story headed "Muslim game outrage". The headline on the online edition was "Anti-Muslim computer game stirs wave of anger". On the Saturday archive index, the headline is "Computer game riles Muslims".

Yep, no prejudice here. Just another story about those bloody Muslims yet again getting angry (and possibly violent) about being criticised. Heck, why be offended by a computer game where players get to engage in "modern religious genocide"? What's wrong with a game about "killing as many Muslims as possible, ranging from terrorists and civilians to Osama bin Laden, even the prophet Mohammed and Allah"? As if Jews or Christians would be offended by a game about massacring them.

But Mr Fagan will insist that the various headlines to this story weren't written to generate such responses. Try believing that once you've read the 100-plus comments left on the Courier Mail website, the bulk of which refer to Muslims getting unnecessarily sensitive, hating free speech, invading our country, killing us if they had a chance, why don't they get as angry as when one of them blows up a church? etc etc.

The game's developer describes it as intending to

... mock the foreign policy of the United States and the commonly held belief ... that Muslims are a hostile people to be held with suspicion.

In other words, it was all satire, a case of Team America becoming Game America. Just like the Lindsay pamphlet, only worse. At least one computing magazine disagrees.

The game's instructions made reference to the "Muslim race". The developer now says he doesn't believe Muslims have racial or genetic defects. I sure hope no one at the Courier Mail believes this either, even if their ultimate employer seems to.

First published in the Crikey daily alert for Monday 15 September 2008.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf