引用:
原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-16 03:13 發表
totally wrong, he didn't merely ask a question. He is 誹謗. He said someone collects money for illegal stuff... what's your evidence?
That's where I want to come in. Loksiu did not make a statement 陳述句 of accusation to the effect that someone received money......and did not name anyone in that utterance. Rather, he asked a question whether the forum could allow people receiving money.........to stay.
Possibly he had 流料
in mind but even so, he did not 'say his mind'. You might say that from the context of the exchanges on that thread, it was clear that loksiu was indirectly referring to ('alluding to') 流料, but one could rebut by saying that it was an incidental (順帶) hypothetical question about an issue raised in general (a sidetrack you could say), not the issue surrounding 流料 in particular. Under the law of civil libel in Hong Kong, yes, to demonstrate a person has committed libel against another, there is no need to provide evidence of 指明道姓. You can just demonstrate that the one 'alluded to' can be inferred without reasonable doubt to be someone. But in this case here, did loksiu make a statement? No. Can we make a reasonable inference that points to 流料? I wonder, given that loksiu's question sounded more hypothetical than accusatory to me.
And do the law-enforcement authorities in HK actively intervene if they ever suspect a case of libel in the first instance? No. Proceedings start only when a case is filed to the court, for the matter is civil, not criminal, and the judge hears the case. Of course our forum is not a governmental agency nor a law court; we are only drawing an analogy. What, then, do I think you the administrator should have done instead?
I think you should have (or could have) reminded loksiu that his question
could (possibly) provoke someone or be taken as libel (without saying that you personally think it
amounted to 構成 libel) . Or you could even have remained inactive until 流料 or anyone else complained. Either way, you next step would have been to advise loksiu to take back what he had said and say the reason is to prevent an argument that might follow. If he did not comply, and an argument then actually ensued (no matter who started it), then ban the one who
continued the argument. I remember that back in 2003-2005, this was how you intervened on the old forum-----you went in admist an argument, and threatened to ban. Then the argument (in most cases) stopped. That was what I appreciated then.
By now on this new forum, the above two-step approach may seem to you clumsier than a simple 'pre-emptive' ban which you imposed on loksiu this time. But I'd rather you took it in two steps (as you generally did back in the old days) so that both the manner and the outcome of your intervention are acceptable by most if not all (能服眾). With argument initiation not allowed here, if you are to intervene, intervene to
prevent argument in your role as administrator and board master of 意見區. You need not have recourse to the notion of 誹謗.(You said loksiu did not know about the law of any big country. Did you check up the legalities involved in libel?) Instead
go back to the spirit of the forum rules: to prevent argument and ensure harmony. Hence intervene, when you deem it necessary, to prevent argument,
without pre-emptively accusing anyone or 'stretching' what someone says beyond his words on the surface (i.e. saying that loksiu's hypothetical, generalised question is an attack directed specifically on 流料 in this case here.)
I earnestly implore you to remove your ban on loksiu and all the rest of them. If anyone of them did deserve a ban in the past, you did not ban him/her when the situation would warrant it (or you finally let him off, as in the case of your previous ban on loksiu which was subsequently removed). I am not saying that they did deserve punishment in the past (I withhold my view here); I am saying that if at opportune times for banning them in the past (if there were ever any) you chose not to punish them,
this time all the more they should not be banned.
They might leave the forum altogether in the end, as stated by some of them on other threads. Let them leave in an honourable way (with their membership intact), even if they have acted in ways dishonourable in your eyes in the past.
Whitekitty
[
本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-16 21:21 編輯 ]
