There is no guideline to justify this.

[BigDave708]

I'd like to ask why this thread was closed:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=317953

All the replies were on-topic, polite and didn't violate any forum rules; in my opinion, anyway. The thread was started by a forum moderator, so it doesn't appear as though the subject could have been in violation of the forum rules either.

I fail to see how "he is innocent until proven guilty" is an adequate reason either as no-one had convicted him themselves - one poster even expressed hope that he would be found innocent.

It seems like a strange action to me, so I thought I should request edification on the matter.

Thanks.

[KiwiNZ]

When something is before the Courts that is where it should stay.

[az]

There is no Backyard guideline to justfiy this:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=318707


Kiwi, you can't arbitrarily lock down threads because you think it's the moral thing to do. That thread did not violate any guideline and was not offensive.


Either get the admins together and ammend the rules, or stop imposing your views on others by using your moderator powers.

[BigDave708]

When something is before the Courts that is where it should stay.
Why? Following your logic, shouldn't we be able to discuss it after the court which tries him has reached its verdict?

Regardless, it's a pertinent topic as it involves a person with an important role within Linux.

[KiwiNZ]

When the Courts decide that is different . Until then it is Sub judice

[KiwiNZ]

It is before the Courts and therefore Sub Judice

The guidline was legal precident and the principles of Natural justice.

[az]

The discussion happens to be more about The Shawshank Redemption.

Your idea of legal precedent has no meaning here, since no one here is involved with the actual case, nor discussing the actual case.

It happens to be the same kind of conversation that ocurred when Martha Stewart was sent to jail.

You have no justification for locking that thread. If you want to pull out of a hat any 'ol reason to lock a thread, you must know that has negative consequences. I don't think that's best for the forums community.

I would suggest you either ammend the rules to this section (which were worked out previously using feedback from the forum users) or stick to them.

And please reinstate my read permissions to this forum section. I don't appreciate having to log out to read my own post and answer your reply. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that.


Thank you.

[az]

In regards to my previous statement about my read permissions here, please disregard. I can now browse this section while logged in. It may have been a question of my inaptitude. My apologies.

[KiwiNZ]

The discussion happens to be more about The Shawshank Redemption.

Your idea of legal precedent has no meaning here, since no one here is involved with the actual case, nor discussing the actual case.

It happens to be the same kind of conversation that ocurred when Martha Stewart was sent to jail.

You have no justification for locking that thread. If you want to pull out of a hat any 'ol reason to lock a thread, you must know that has negative consequences. I don't think that's best for the forums community.

I would suggest you either ammend the rules to this section (which were worked out previously using feedback from the forum users) or stick to them.

And please reinstate my read permissions to this forum section. I don't appreciate having to log out to read my own post and answer your reply. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that.


Thank you.

I did not "pull out of the hat any ol reason" , I suggest you brief yourself on Sub Judice .

That thread will remain closed until the case is decided by the appropriate authority .

Rule 2 for the Backyard allows for the action taken

[BigDave708]

Sub judice
If we assume the laws of the USA to examine this - which would be a good idea, considering two out of the three admins on this site are American and the criminal proceedings are taking place in America - then I believe we are protected by the First Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As azz stated in his thread started about this same matter (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=318717):


Either get the admins together and ammend the rules, or stop imposing your views on others by using your moderator powers.

[KiwiNZ]

The matter is Sub Judice

That thread will remain closed until the case is decided by the appropriate authority .

Rule 2 for the Backyard allows for the action taken

[BigDave708]

That thread will remain closed until the case is decided by the appropriate authority .
I take it that the "appropriate authority" is the Forum Council? In other words, you're letting the decision lying on someone else's head.


Rule 2 for the Backyard allows for the action taken
Rule 2 is so damn ambiguous that it could be used as justification to pull almost any post in the Backyard - it just depends on the views of the moderator, which is what I believe azz was referring to. On the face of it, rule 2 may seem clear, but almost every post in the backyard states a political, religious or social belief, and invariably there will always be someone who disagrees (and if you disagree, it's likely the thread will be locked or another one of those pesky infraction points will go flying all over the place).

By the by, since the forum changes took place yesterday, the backyard rules haven't appeared at the top of the page. If you're adament to quote them, you should ensure that they're publically visible.

[KiwiNZ]

I take it that the "appropriate authority" is the Forum Council? In other words, you're letting the decision lying on someone else's head.


The appropriate authority I refer to is the US court System . I was refering to the Court Case.

[KiwiNZ]

By the by, since the forum changes took place yesterday, the backyard rules haven't appeared at the top of the page. If you're adament to quote them, you should ensure that they're publically visible.

The rules are visible ?

If you cannot see them please post a screen shot in the Forum Feed back thread about the changes

[az]

I did not "pull out of the hat any ol reason" , I suggest you brief yourself on Sub Judice .

Sub Judice would mean that that thread is a threat to due process.

Now can you think that that discussion could affect the particular legal proceedings?

How many other staff members did you discuss this with before deciding you needed to take action?



That thread will remain closed until the case is decided by the appropriate authority .

Rule 2 for the Backyard allows for the action taken

If you are refering to illegal activities, why do you beleive that thread puts the forums users or the forum itself at any risk? Have you been contacted by a lawyer?

[KiwiNZ]

Extract from the Backyard rules

"...they have the option at their sole descretion to:

a. Remove the post and send it to the jail.
b. Lock the thread.
c. Ban the user.
d. Give the user an infraction point.
e. Do any of the above."Forum staff do not need to discuss action before they take it . We often do but it is not a requirement.

Sub Judice is ...
"Of judicial proceedings, not yet decided by a court of law or judge. As long as a matter is sub judice all discussion is prohibited elsewhere. "

[az]

Extract from the Backyard rules

"...they have the option at their sole descretion to:

a. Remove the post and send it to the jail.
b. Lock the thread.
c. Ban the user.
d. Give the user an infraction point.
e. Do any of the above."Forum staff do not need to discuss action before they take it . We often do but it is not a requirement."

That quote currently only applies to rule number one, and all the posts were within the limits of polite and courteous. As far as the other part, were you avoiding my question or was that a "none, I did it myself"?





Sub Judice is ...
"Of judicial proceedings, not yet decided by a court of law or judge. As long as a matter is sub judice all discussion is prohibited elsewhere. "

Again, how can you think that that discussion could affect the particular legal proceedings? You are misrepresenting the law. No one here is involved with the case and so discussing the matter here can not disrupt the preceedings. Are you going to try to stop the San Francisco Chronicle from publishing, too?

[KiwiNZ]

Concerning matters that are Sub Judice........

There are some things you must not do:

Don't prejudge cases before the courts. It is contempt to say a person is guilty or innocent of a crime before they have been convicted or acquitted, or that a person is liable (eg, negligent) in a civil action before judgment is given. (But note that a person can protest their own innocence but not necessarily their own guilt. )
Don't publish the criminal record of an accused before conviction or acquittal.
Don't publish prejudicial information about a person shortly before or during their criminal trial.
Don't publish or mention the confession of an accused person before it has been read out or discussed in open court.
Don't publish evidence before it is given in open court.
Don't publish an independent investigation of a case that is before a court.
Don't publish any statements made in court when the jury is out of the court. Sometimes a jury is sent out while admissibility of evidence, procedural matters or points of law are argued and determined on the `voir dire'. While a judge will allow the public and media to remain in court, it would obviously defeat the purpose of excluding the jury if the media were to report what took place in its absence.
Don't publish a photograph of an accused in crimes such as murder, assault and robbery, because the identity of the accused is likely to be important in these cases.
Don't put pressure on a witness or a party not to participate in or continue with a case, civil or criminal.It is not contempt to publish:


Reports of what is said and admitted in evidence in open court , if such reports are fair and accurate and are not subject to a suppression order by the court.
Reports of the laying of charges, the name of the accused and the bare facts that would have been apparent to any observer (but not the details nor the police press release! ).
Statements by people themselves saying they are not guilty in a criminal case or not liable in a civil case.
In civil cases without juries (eg, planning, negligence, employment, industrial, administrative, commercial cases), debate on the issues without prejudging the case.
Balanced criticism about judges' and lawyers' performances in cases (although in criminal cases this should be left until a trial and appeals are completed). For example, for a person to say `I don't think the evidence before this inquiry is broad enough' or `They aren't being critical enough of the evidence' would not be in contempt if a person is qualified to hold such an opinion.


It is also irrelevent as to if the decision to close the thread was discussed prior closing . Satff of Ubuntu Forums are permitted under the rules of the Forum to close threads at their discretion. As in the case here.

Decision Regarding closure of the thread

The thread concern Mr Reiser will remain closed until the Court System has made its decision.

[az]

I suggest you open this up for public discussion. Since the venue of the resolution center does not permit others from contributing to this, I am getting private messages and I do not want to be the middle man.


Quote an anonymous user:
(edited to preserve anonymity)

"I'm at a loss as to Kiwi's position on locking the Reiser thread. He does seem to possess an itchy trigger finger when it comes to locking threads.

Anyhow, the reason I'm writing is that he has used the "these forums are hosted in the US... blah, blah, blah..." whenever he closes the threads based on codecs, MP3s and the like.

If that's the case, he can't have it both ways. ..., the US 1st amendment has been beaten through my head a few times.

There are examples of the US media publishing information BEFORE it ever reaches trial. A simple look at the LAW section of CNN.com illustrates this:

http://us.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/12/baby.microwave.ap/index.html
http://us.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/08/people.wesleysnipes.ap/index.html
http://us.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/11/people.nicolerichie.ap/index.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/12/14/bc.cyc.apnewsalert.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

... needs to unlock the thread."

Please consider putting this issue up for discussion with the forum public.

[az]

Concerning matters that are Sub Judice........

There are some things you must not do:

...And that does not even take into consideration whether forum threads count as publishing in the first place. Remember, this is a members-only forum section - not a trusted news source intended to reach the general public.

The forum users should be the ones to decide what is appropriate and what is not.

[dhalgren]

See the following:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=318707



The matter is Sub Judice

That thread will remain closed until the case is decided by the appropriate authority .

The whole issue of something being "under the law" is designed to prevent those involved in the case from discussing their evidence.

The appropriate law would affect someone if and only if they are involved in the case.

No one else is prevented, by law which, in this instance, applies in AMERIKA ONLY from viewing their opinion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiNZ View Post
When something is before the Courts that is where it should stay.


Get your law right and correct kiwi. You do not even know what the term means or who it applies to.

[KiwiNZ]

...And that does not even take into consideration whether forum threads count as publishing in the first place. Remember, this is a members-only forum section - not a trusted news source intended to reach the general public.

The forum users should be the ones to decide what is appropriate and what is not.

I refer you to the Forum Guidlines here http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy

The guidlines , when you join these forums you agree to abide by this policy. The policy states that this is a moderated forum . Staff will edit for content Section 1, article 1 states that we will some times ask for input , in other cases we will not and we ask that you respect our decision.

Section 1 article 15 states and I quote....

"The web-master, administrators and moderators of this forum will preserve forum content when possible. However editing, locking and deleting content may be necessary at the sole discretion of the web-master, administrators and moderators when policy has been violated"

[KiwiNZ]

This has been moved to the Resolution Centre as it applies to a decision under review

[dhalgren]

my comments refer to the law as much as anything.

shall i start a new one which does not refer to you or to any other dispute? one which merely discusses the facts of the law rather than your mis-interpretation of the law?

[KiwiNZ]

I have merged the three threads concerning this

[KiwiNZ]

This case is now being reported in the press. Therefore I have reopened the thread in the Backyard.

You are free to discuss what is being reported in the press , However, remember any presumption of guilt or innocence posted here before the Court has made a decision can be deemed Contempt of Court.

Any post of that nature will be removed.

[az]

See text:

vBulletin Message

azz, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Log Out Home




This case is now being reported in the press. Therefore I have reopened the thread in the Backyard.

You are free to discuss what is being reported in the press , However, remember any presumption of guilt or innocence posted here before the Court has made a decision can be deemed Contempt of Court.

Any post of that nature will be removed.

The case was reported in the press from the beginning! That was the first post of the thread.

As far as you deleting posts from the thread which mention the case, have you ever watched Larry King? He interviews people in the news and discusses ongoing cases just about every night.

I don't think you are correct to beleive you are doing the forum community any favors by deleting posts.

And that's all I have to say about that. I'll let others feel free to continue this debate with you. Please ensure that others have the correct priviledges to do so. I made my point.

[BigDave708]

This case is now being reported in the press. Therefore I have reopened the thread in the Backyard.
Thank you. It really goes to show that it was unnecessary to close it in the first place.