Message Boards

[knapplc]

I don't have a problem with it personally. It is not as if someone is being slandered or that pay-site information has been compromised.

 

It's a simple rumor, most of these rumors have legs. I think this conversation is much to-do over nothing.

 

I just explained why this could cause problems.

[knapplc]

1. Can Huskerboard be held legally responsible when fans speculate about rumors of player injuries?

 

2. Was not the injury information discussed taken directly from media sources who tweeted and/or published the information?

 

If the answer both these questions is no, then there was no reason to lock any threads, and it was simply a case of one sensitive mod exercising his authority to disrupt free speech. If the answer is yes––and I mean pertaining to this exact issue, not some hypothetical second thing––then yeah, good call not letting the board collapse under the weight of legal fees.

The answer to #1 is "maybe." And nobody here is going to take that chance.

 

This board is not a forum for free speech any more than your workplace. AR Husker Fan has explained this on occasion, so maybe he'll chime in with the legalese on it, but this isn't a First Amendment issue.

[Husker_x]

1. Can Huskerboard be held legally responsible when fans speculate about rumors of player injuries?

 

2. Was not the injury information discussed taken directly from media sources who tweeted and/or published the information?

 

If the answer both these questions is no, then there was no reason to lock any threads, and it was simply a case of one sensitive mod exercising his authority to disrupt free speech. If the answer is yes––and I mean pertaining to this exact issue, not some hypothetical second thing––then yeah, good call not letting the board collapse under the weight of legal fees.

The answer to #1 is "maybe." And nobody here is going to take that chance.

 

This board is not a forum for free speech any more than your workplace. AR Husker Fan has explained this on occasion, so maybe he'll chime in with the legalese on it, but this isn't a First Amendment issue.

 

"Maybe" sounds a lot like "no" to be, because I can't even fathom the number of lawsuits that would have to be filed worldwide if every time fans speculated about something they 'heard'––which is true, btw, they did hear it––some athlete got hurt. If rumors are reported as rumors and facts are reported as facts, where's the lawsuit coming from?

[knapplc]

"Maybe" sounds a lot like "no" to be, because I can't even fathom the number of lawsuits that would have to be filed worldwide if every time fans speculated about something they 'heard'––which is true, btw, they did hear it––some athlete got hurt. If rumors are reported as rumors and facts are reported as facts, where's the lawsuit coming from?

 

Then take it up with the Admins. This has been discussed in the past, and we've chosen to err on the side of caution.

[74Hunter]

I don't have a problem with it personally. It is not as if someone is being slandered or that pay-site information has been compromised.

 

It's a simple rumor, most of these rumors have legs. I think this conversation is much to-do over nothing.

 

I just explained why this could cause problems.

I understand. I was just giving my opinion, not trying to start a fight.

[zoogs]

1. Can Huskerboard be held legally responsible when fans speculate about rumors of player injuries?

 

2. Was not the injury information discussed taken directly from media sources who tweeted and/or published the information?

 

I personally don't have an answer for the first one, but I suspect it's a no.

 

For the second, the Fisher injury was reported by the media, but I'm not sure the Blue story ever was. As we've seen, Coach Pelini is not too happy about the media reporting in any case. A separate discussion, but I wouldn't be happy either. I don't think he's in the wrong about this.

 

If the answer both these questions is no, then there was no reason to lock any threads, and it was simply a case of one sensitive mod exercising his authority to disrupt free speech. If the answer is yes––and I mean pertaining to this exact issue, not some hypothetical second thing––then yeah, good call not letting the board collapse under the weight of legal fees.

 

As far as I could tell, the Blue story was not broken by the media yet. However, I didn't lock the threads to disrupt free speech. On the one hand, once we hear about this, how can people not be curious and want to discuss the potential injury, its possible effect on the depth, find out more, and so on? On the other hand, the unreported and undisclosed details of a fresh injury occurring at a 'closed' practice is something that is just asking for very tenuously valid bits of information to pop up and spread as rumors. It's one thing when we are talking about a coaching change or a recruit's commitment status, but another, IMO, when we are talking about a player's injury.

 

So while you could say free speech is exactly what was disrupted, I would counter that with 'even though the news is out there, further speculation on this is something that shouldn't be happening.' We are all curious and I'd love to have that discussion as much as anybody. But the message I wanted to send with the lock was "We should really let Blue alone on this until the team wants to make it public." A thread on "What does our corner situation look like now with Blue out?" would have been fine. But the focus was on Blue and I felt that he could get at least a little time before we let it blow up on the internet.

 

Maybe it was a pointless use of moderator privileges when a post to that effect would have sufficed, and maybe I could have left the thread open longer to see the direction it was going to take. But I felt like it was a small measure that could be taken to protect the involved parties, at least on this message board. I understand that there are two sides to this. It's not great for us as forum members - since it's basically a countermeasure to the openness and fast availability of information that the internet now affords us. It's saying "that openness is too much, in this case."

 

I don't think I'm as conservative on this point as knapp or brophog, but if you read brophog's post, he makes a lot of good points. It's the middle ground that's hard to find and I realize you can't really please everyone here. Some people won't mind, some people will be pissed. On the other hand this isn't totally Hollywood and the Huskers aren't just the celebrities we follow in detail and live vicariously through. They're the players and coaches that we root for as well (at least, most of them ). That's all I hope we keep in mind.

 

However, I don't think I'd lock the next thread if it happens again - I'd give it a chance to not get out of hand. I wouldn't be opposed to a lock either, but that's just me. I think the onus is more on the university to keep the lid on information it doesn't want to get out. Once it's out there, people will discuss it, locked threads or not. This isn't a black or white ruling, i.e, 'this discussion is just not ok.' And I don't want people to have to be oversensitive when discussing injuries in the future. It's more a gentle reminder that sometimes, the media spotlight is just a little much, and that our desire for immediate access to information may sometime come at the detriment of the players and team we are fans of, even though we certainly never intend it.

[Fuzzy]

Do parents these days follow their kids through online message boards?

 

More than likely no. The either are contacted by the staff or their own kids tell them before we get wind of things, atleast that is the way it is suppose to work. I'm when an injury or anything like that comes out to the public, we assume the parents know once we start talking about it.

 

With that being said, it doesn't mean that parents of players are not reading what we type on here though, so for some of us (including myself) we need to try and watch what we say, you never know whose player's parents could be reading what your saying.

[Husker_x]

1. Can Huskerboard be held legally responsible when fans speculate about rumors of player injuries?

 

2. Was not the injury information discussed taken directly from media sources who tweeted and/or published the information?

 

I personally don't have an answer for the first one, but I suspect it's a no.

 

For the second, the Fisher injury was reported by the media, but I'm not sure the Blue story ever was. As we've seen, Coach Pelini is not too happy about the media reporting in any case. A separate discussion, but I wouldn't be happy either. I don't think he's in the wrong about this.

 

If the answer both these questions is no, then there was no reason to lock any threads, and it was simply a case of one sensitive mod exercising his authority to disrupt free speech. If the answer is yes––and I mean pertaining to this exact issue, not some hypothetical second thing––then yeah, good call not letting the board collapse under the weight of legal fees.

 

As far as I could tell, the Blue story was not broken by the media yet. However, I didn't lock the threads to disrupt free speech. On the one hand, once we hear about this, how can people not be curious and want to discuss the potential injury, its possible effect on the depth, find out more, and so on? On the other hand, the unreported and undisclosed details of a fresh injury occurring at a 'closed' practice is something that is just asking for very tenuously valid bits of information to pop up and spread as rumors. It's one thing when we are talking about a coaching change or a recruit's commitment status, but another, IMO, when we are talking about a player's injury.

 

So while you could say free speech is exactly what was disrupted, I would counter that with 'even though the news is out there, further speculation on this is something that shouldn't be happening.' We are all curious and I'd love to have that discussion as much as anybody. But the message I wanted to send with the lock was "We should really let Blue alone on this until the team wants to make it public." A thread on "What does our corner situation look like now with Blue out?" would have been fine. But the focus was on Blue and I felt that he could get at least a little time before we let it blow up on the internet.

 

Maybe it was a pointless use of moderator privileges when a post to that effect would have sufficed, and maybe I could have left the thread open longer to see the direction it was going to take. But I felt like it was a small measure that could be taken to protect the involved parties, at least on this message board. I understand that there are two sides to this. It's not great for us as forum members - since it's basically a countermeasure to the openness and fast availability of information that the internet now affords us. It's saying "that openness is too much, in this case."

 

I don't think I'm as conservative on this point as knapp or brophog, but if you read brophog's post, he makes a lot of good points. It's the middle ground that's hard to find and I realize you can't really please everyone here. Some people won't mind, some people will be pissed. On the other hand this isn't totally Hollywood and the Huskers aren't just the celebrities we follow in detail and live vicariously through. They're the players and coaches that we root for as well (at least, most of them ). That's all I hope we keep in mind.

 

However, I don't think I'd lock the next thread if it happens again - I'd give it a chance to not get out of hand. I wouldn't be opposed to a lock either, but that's just me. I think the onus is more on the university to keep the lid on information it doesn't want to get out. Once it's out there, people will discuss it, locked threads or not. This isn't a black or white ruling, i.e, 'this discussion is just not ok.' And I don't want people to have to be oversensitive when discussing injuries in the future. It's more a gentle reminder that sometimes, the media spotlight is just a little much, and that our desire for immediate access to information may sometime come at the detriment of the players and team we are fans of, even though we certainly never intend it.

 

Hey zoogies.

 

I mean this with all respect for you. The problem with the bold up there is that's exactly what limiting free speech is, and that's usually how it happens. Someone thinks it would be better for everyone if this or that wasn't discussed until this or that happens. In my opinion, that's not the place of a moderator to decide. You are certainly under no obligation to discuss or read the speculation, but closing down a forum in which everyone was consistently differentiating between rumor and fact seems needless. I understand it's a tough call. But by the time you locked it the rumor had already begun. This is what I meant up above about life in the internet age. We might as well not kid ourselves.

 

I'd like to hear what the Admin's do have to say about any policies in place.

[knapplc]

Again, this is not a First Amendments issue. There is no "free speech" on an Internet forum.

[HuskerJosh]

There's no First Amendment issue unless there is a state actor. I wish more people understood this.

[Husker_x]

Again, this is not a First Amendments issue. There is no "free speech" on an Internet forum.

 

I'm not using the term in a legal sense.

[HuskerNMO]

Again, this is not a First Amendments issue. There is no "free speech" on an Internet forum.

 

I'm not using the term in a legal sense.

 

What sense are you using it in then? Pretty sure the owners and moderators of this forum have the privledge and responsibility to run the message board how they see fit. Just curious how free speech would come into play in any way shape or form.

[Husker_x]

Again, this is not a First Amendments issue. There is no "free speech" on an Internet forum.

 

I'm not using the term in a legal sense.

 

What sense are you using it in then? Pretty sure the owners and moderators of this forum have the privledge and responsibility to run the message board how they see fit. Just curious how free speech would come into play in any way shape or form.

 

Is this message board not a place for open discussion about all issues pertaining to Husker football? Are people free or not to pretty much to discuss what they want with the exception of personal attacks and other things specifically listed in the board rules? Now until an Admin come swooping in here to clarify something, I've got one mod saying that he closed the forum for some wishy-washy reason but he wouldn't do it again, another mod telling us to ask the men upstairs, and me stating my opinion on the issue.

 

No sh#t the first amendment doesn't apply to someone else's private message board, but from where I'm sitting the discussion was entirely in the bounds of the Board's stance on free speech––nothing personal, nothing from pay sites, nothing libelous. Where's the issue? No one's pointed it out.

[HuskerGBR]

I don't like how the media guys were calling the family...that is totally out of line and they should know better. I don't think they should ever be allowed to call family members of COLLEGE players for any reason. Or at least the majority of reasons.

 

I am not a fan of threads being locked and it happens all over, not just here. It smells of censorship and in my opinion...bad things happen when people are silenced. The mods can do whatever they deem appropriate, but just be careful with censoring is all.

 

So, obviously, I don't like how closed off the program has become. It is something for the whole state of Nebraska and something we should be able to enjoy. So what if the other team can get some scouting reports?...you still have to stop it. That is just my opinion though and just wanted you guys to think about being careful about censoring too much.

 

Btw- stop worrying about your kids so much some of you. You can't keep them in a bubble and the trials and tribulations they go through will make them the person they will become in life. All right, that is my preaching for the day!

[knapplc]

I am not a fan of threads being locked and it happens all over, not just here. It smells of censorship and in my opinion...bad things happen when people are silenced. The mods can do whatever they deem appropriate, but just be careful with censoring is all.

 

For the record, none of the Mods are happy when threads are locked.