Comments are welcome, except where there is:
2. Breach of copyright;
3. Arguing off-topic in order to push a certain political line;
4. Trying to advertise one’s site by leaving a link;
5. Victimhood Poker [link].
Here’s something extra on the defamation issue:
There’s no ban on strong language, nor on political views other than those on women. N.O. does take a line, as a site, on women – it didn’t earlier, it does now.
The default position is that this site is pro-people, meaning both sexes. However, in each sex, there are sub-groups who are pains in the butt for their behaviour and are therefore fair game for comment.
Netiquette says you don’t go to someone’s blog to advertise yourself. Comments containing self-advertising links are deleted.
Most people leave links within their comment name and that’s encouraged. Authors are encouraged to leave some sort of link back to them.
However, anyone in perma-moderation is not welcome to leave a link to a site. They already know this.
This site does not do link exchanges, nor advertising.
There is no whitelist at N.O. but there are regulars who’ve been with us for some time and are generally friendly. If their comments do not appear, it’s more than likely to be a tech glitch.
If there were an issue, then there’d also be an accompanying, visible explanation. No explanation can be seen? Means a tech glitch. Patience, dear reader.
When a post goes up, the authors reserve the right to edit the content of their own post in situ on the front page for an hour. Therefore, please don’t quote the author immediately but wait one hour.
Poor grammar, misspelling or typos can be altered at any time without explanation but any change of content after one hour is discouraged and would be accompanied by an explanation as to why it was changed.
The exception is a live blog.
All reasonable effort is made to track down the owners of images and to embed them [or footnotes] with urls. If we’re notified an image is copyright, then when the notifier can prove it is his/hers, we’ll take down immediately if requested.
Any attempt at extortion of money is met with Arkell v Pressdram. The law of this country places an obligation on the complainant to give a “reasonable time” to take down.
At N.O., we see that “reasonable time” as 24 hours.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) indicates that new cookie compliance rules came into force on 26th May, 2012. It indicates that implied consent is a valid form of consent and therefore Nourishing Obscurity would like readers/users to understand that using this site might result in cookies being used.
This article goes into it:
No other notice is given nor posted on the front page.
Sub-judice and injunction
In the light of this news item on Feb 25th, 2016:
… and this site already up:
… a close reading shows that we are as bound by rules of sub judice and injunction as the MSM, also on matters of defamation and copyright. It’s also not enough for just admins and contributors to know it, readers too need to bear it in mind in comments.
If the admins feel we or a reader may have breached, we’ll delete the comment in question with an explanation and we can then argue it out from that position, rather than with it still up.
Having fulfilled our obligations on that, it remains to say that outside of statutory requirements of that nature and providing we are quite legal, attempts to suppress free speech at this blog will be met with the rejoinder in Arkell v Pressdram:
Further, any attempt at extortion or chantage will be met with the same reply.
This has been added on December 17th, 2017.
Policies often come out of test cases and this test case was at another site where I wrote, Orphans of Liberty. The policies above here bind any writer at N.O. but no one else. However, when I write at another site, I carry with me the main thrust of the above, within that site’s own policies.
There was a post I put up which in part was based on news reports in the MSM [inc. CNN] which alleged that a woman in the USA had altered or forged a yearbook entry over a political candidate in order to defame him.
A commenter came in and indulged in some ad hominem, calling me a lying type of Christian. The nub of the matter was that the woman subsequently reneged in their media and while the leftwing press carried the new sophistry, the Deplorable sites still carried the original allegation, which I stick to to this day.
Clearly, on a blog, there is no resolution of such a matter – there would have to be a test case in the States for the matter to be resolved. One reader who saw this exchange noted:
Sounds and reads to me as though he’s trying to pick a fight over a reported contentious position and person in the States.
My action was to close comments but not trackbacks, he was not banned, his comments were not deleted. I, as the author of the post, used my right to close comments on my own post, after my right of reply, which introduced no new issue.
Not to have done so would have started a slanging match of the “did-did not-did-did not” variety and that was not in anyone’s further interests. He had his say, I had mine, end of.
May 19th, 2011. Added to May 22nd, 2011. Modified August 3rd, 2011. Modified November 26th, 2011. Modified January 9th, 2012. Modified May 26th, 2012. Modified August 24th, 2012. Link added September 28th, 2012. Modified June 24th, 2013. Modified July 22nd, 2013. Modified February 10th, 2014. Modified June 18th, 2014. Modified June 19th, 2014. Modified July 14th, 2014. Added to February 25th, 2016. Added to December 17th, 2017.