Attention Big Man...

[MacabreMob]

I point out also that this board does not allow complete free speech. You will edit or delete negative posts about Bradley and certainly will not allow negative rumors without basis in fact or already reported stay on the board. Other boards do not have such moderators so all the stuff you censor here is let go. Do you think its fair for people to post speculative material that could be half the truth?

I KNOW the 'other board' moderates.

I KNOW the IlliniBoard moderates and edits posts.

[Lakeview Brave]

I point out also that this board does not allow complete free speech. You will edit or delete negative posts about Bradley and certainly will not allow negative rumors without basis in fact or already reported stay on the board. Other boards do not have such moderators so all the stuff you censor here is let go. Do you think its fair for people to post speculative material that could be half the truth?

I KNOW the 'other board' moderates.

I KNOW the IlliniBoard moderates and edits posts.

There are thousands of boards whos moderators vary in degree of censorship. This board does not allow rumors about Bradley, even ones that are not negative, like if someone will be back next year. I dont think there is anything wrong with that and I think this board is run very well but would it be fair to say that if such rumors were allowed, Jim Les and other members of the coaching staff and athletic department might be upset? I think they would and that is the same thing Bruce Weber is upset about.

[MacabreMob]

There are thousands of boards whos moderators vary in degree of censorship. This board does not allow rumors about Bradley, even ones that are not negative, like if someone will be back next year. I dont think there is anything wrong with that and I think this board is run very well but would it be fair to say that if such rumors were allowed, Jim Les and other members of the coaching staff and athletic department might be upset? I think they would and that is the same thing Bruce Weber is upset about.

I am not sure what we might be differeing on here.

This board does not allow rumours - ones like if someone won't be back next year. I say bologna. There were many threads and discussion last year over OB (even DURING the season) as to whether he was going to the NBA. But how would you feel if you are Matt Salley and the coaching staff and/or you catch wind on a message board saying you won't be back next year. Here's a guy that played a lot this year and is expected to play a ton next year... and some putz on a message board thinks you're going to be gone. BAD - VERY BAD. The Message Board loses a lot of respect (and credibility). This Message Board is not connected directly with Bradley University and could be a "Hack" Message Board if it chose to... but I think this is THE BEST MESSAGE BOARD FOR BRADLEY FANS - PERIOD.

So BAM (aka Bruce All-Mighty, Bruce Webber) is upset (aka whining) about someone noting he was somewhere... and he was (whining) mentioning he hadn't had a day off since Christmas???? If he had a handle on his staff and players down there, he coulda enjoyed a nice snow storm from his window if ..... (you know the rest of the story.... and the theme might have carried thru to the whole head-ache of a season for BAM, and no wonder Guenther is such a wound-up outta control AD at games).

[Da Coach]

The owners of a website are responsible for it's content. There have been lawsuits that have determined this, and held websites accountable to the law. For example, YouTube has recently been sued successfully to remove copyrighted material. And successful libel cases have also been made.

On the other side of this argument is the "free speech" issue. Unless statements made on the internet violate copyright or trademark rights, just about everything else people post is protected by constitutional freedoms.
The exception is libel, but that is very hard and expensive to prove, and often the complainant suffers more embarrassment and damage pursuing a lawsuit than just ignoring such stuff.

The bottom line IMO, is that anyone who believes stuff that's on the internet, does so at their own risk. But I have certainly seen numerous examples of where internet reports were more accurate and more timely than reports from legitimate news and sports organizations.

[Lakeview Brave]

The owners of a website are responsible for it's content. There have been lawsuits that have determined this, and held websites accountable to the law. For example, YouTube has recently been sued successfully to remove copyrighted material. And successful libel cases have also been made.

On the other side of this argument is the "free speech" issue. Unless statements made on the internet violate copyright or trademark rights, just about everything else people post is protected by constitutional freedoms.
The exception is libel, but that is very hard and expensive to prove, and often the complainant suffers more embarrassment and damage pursuing a lawsuit than just ignoring such stuff.

The bottom line IMO, is that anyone who believes stuff that's on the internet, does so at their own risk. But I have certainly seen numerous examples of where internet reports were more accurate and more timely than reports from legitimate news and sports organizations.

So are you and the other owners of this sight responsible for everything written on here? Im just wondering since that seems like a tremendous amount of responsibility, given the amount of posts and the fact that you dont screen posters.

[Da Coach]

So are you and the other owners of this sight responsible for everything written on here?

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think there is a clear answer to this question. I do know some sites have been held accountable for what others post on their site (see the YouTube example). Other lawsuits have ruled that as long as it involves an open forum and if the owners make a reasonable attempt to review and control the content, they can't be held responsible for what others say.

[tornado]

Lakeview...you bring up very good points.
But so far, the issue of accountability is somewhat nebulous.
I have asked for and requested that anyone show me an example of a person who posted an opinion on the internet, who got sued or arrested.

Show me one...I have been looking and asking for years and have never seen one.

As long as it isn't a violation of copyrighted material or part of some plot to cause harm, blow people up, or get involved in drugs or porn.
I mean just plain old opinion....show me an example.

I think the main crux of your argument about accountability...is just who is going to be the referee?
If you say something is unfair, then are you the referee?
I suppose we are going to get a million different opinions on this issue.
Suffice it to say there will always be borderline cases and gray areas, but the vast majority of what's talked about and said on the internet, and the vast amount of what Bruce Weber has whined about, what Bill Lisees has whines about, and what Phil Luciano has whines about, is constitutionally protected free spech and opinion, but it's just coming from a source they don't like.
I am always amused when one political party actually tried to get the broadcast laws and rules changed just because they don't like the immense popularity of a very vocal radio guy who is of the opposite opinion! Sure, we're all for free speech until it opposes our opinion....yea right.

[chitownBUB]

I have a couple thoughts on this.
First, opinions on the internet are in most cases NOT
anonymous. First, people generally do identify themselves, and
a few know full well who the other posters are. But to post you
have to sign up and the moderators know your email address
and your identity. it certainly would be as easy or easier to
identify and find a message board poster than a guy who writes
a letter to the PJS editor and doesn't give his address.
I guess you could lie, and come up with an obscure email
address, but how does that differ from calling in to a radio talk
show or Jim Les' radio call-in show and giving a phony name?
Or signing a fake name to a letter to the editor of the
newspaper? Or leaving anonymous fliers on thousands of
windshields in a parking lot.
So posting anonymously on the message boards is absolutely
no different than what's been going on for years and years.

Second, the message boards are arenas for opinion and
thought.
But they don't knock your doors down and hit you in the face,
you have to go looking for them.
If I went into a message board for Kansas and they trashed
Bradley, how dare I tell them what to think, it's their board.
And I might think the stuff in Swingers' World or Super Liquors
is objectionable, but I do have the choice of not patronizing
them. Same is true if I don't like Chinese food or the Cubs. I
can just say no or turn them off, right?

Last, the single example given by Bruce Weber in the interview
of an objectionable statement on the message boards was this:
--that someone saw him in the airport and wanted to know
why he wasn't out recruiting.

Duh@@@this is objectionable?
Weber admits it is true....completely true....he WAS in the
airport and he wasn't out recruiting, so how can the poster of
that message be held accountable no matter how anonymous
he is? He didn't say anything that wasn't exactly true?
Given the arguments in the papers and on the web sites about
Weber's recuriting problems, how and why does he choose one
lone web poster to go after? The guy said nothing inflammatory
or derogatory, such as Gregg Doyel did or other columnists.

And on the topic of Jamar Smith, it seems the people on the
interent were actually MORE accurate in their discussions than
the standard media types who propagated the falsehoods of
Carlwell's blood alcohol being zero, and that everyone at the
party was of age.
99.99% of the stuff on the internet message boards is fun,
harmless, fair, and accurate. But some want to shut them all
down because they imagine a few of the statements
are "unfair" or biased. Guess what, the world is NOT fair and
some thigs are biased. Get on with it and learn to deal with it.
And even if some of the comments on this board or other are
unfair, then tell me who is going to legislate against it?

The internet isn't going away soon. And no 10 governments
combined have the resources to poice it and patrol it to
anyone's satisfaction. I guess it's just like the free speech by
the guy on the subway t was talking about. it's always going
to be there.

[Braves4Life]

Great Point

So are you and the other owners of this sight responsible for everything written on here?

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think there is a clear answer to this question. I do know some sites have been held accountable for what others post on their site (see the YouTube example). Other lawsuits have ruled that as long as it involves an open forum and if the owners make a reasonable attempt to review and control the content, they can't be held responsible for what others say.

Wow! That's a great question. I think if I ran a site like this I'd consult with my attorney and get a legal opinion (especially if I personally had a lot at stake).

At the very least, I think I'd put a disclaimer prominently on the home page and take out an umbrella liability policy for $1M+ (very inexpensive).

These are just my thoughts as someone who advises others about investing their money and planning for retirement.

[tornado]

I just did an exhaustive search of all the lawsuits involving internet postings, etc.

There is one that's quoted a lot but it was a defamatory comment in a chat room, and the defendant never hired a lawyer, never actively defended the suit, didn't show up in court, and is unable to pay and won't lose a penny.

Others involve defamatory comments on Blogs, but those aren't message boards either.

If you look only at cases involving message boards in America, there are about 50 such suits presently going on, but indeed none yet seem to have been won by the plaintiffs.
So I stand by my opinion, that comments on message boards just don't end up with the posters losing lawsuits.
And the below article covers a landmark case in California ruling that message board owners can't be held liable for the comments of the posters.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets001955.shtml

"It would be like making the coffee shop owner responsible for what people say in his coffee shop. What this case would say is that providers of forums in the Internet would have an obligation to determine truth or falsity of posts."

" the Internet message board was a ???‚¬?“public forum,???‚¬?? a place open to the public where information is freely exchanged. "

All this still doesn't stop people from suing each other, though.

[IheartBU]

Dear Big Man,

We found your scholarship. Hurry up and get here...


So if you PMed me a couple of weekends ago to find out what I'd found out from a player about someone returning, strike that and reverse it. I'd say we're getting an announcement soon, as he's now being quite loose-lipped about not returning to the hilltop next year. I wish him the best.

[egib52]

Ok so who is on their way out...is it a critical part of the future of this team?

[BradleyBrave]

Ok so who is on their way out...is it a critical part of the future of this team?

Sai what? And no...

[IheartBU]

Ok so who is on their way out...is it a critical part of the future of this team?

Sai what? And no...

BB is right.

[BradleyBrave]

Ok so who is on their way out...is it a critical part of the future of this team?

Sai what? And no...

BB is right.

Just like the tune goes...."Sai goodbye to Hollywood..."