Moral dilemma

[Juan Albion]

So what would you do?

Here is the problem. I write reports on the games my local ice hockey team play. These reports appear on a website that I own and I pay for. I do it on a volunteer basis, although twice in the ten years I've been doing this I have been paid enough to cover my costs for that season. The rest has all been out of my own pocket, including the last two or three years. The club have no control over what I write as by remaining a volunteer I have maintained some editorial independence.

In a report I wrote last Tuesday about a game we won, I stated that "referee Darryl Hancock did well to spot two Lindsay infractions no-one else seemed to see". I worded it carefully so that it would be an ambiguous comment.

The hockey powers-that-be (the equivalent of the FA) have obviously had a complaint from the referee in question and are now saying they will fine the club $1000 if I don't remove the comment.

Censorship really gets my goat and at this time I have no intention of giving way to the threats. However, the club have asked me to give in to them as they say they cannot afford the fine. That may be true but the owners are millionaires.

BTW, we won the game so it wasn't sour grapes.

Here is the report: http://www.lindsaymuskies.com/Reports0910/07PtboA29Sept09W3-1.html

So, what would you do? How important is it to stand up to censorship - or do you think of the club's well-being? Do I just leave it up and quit in protest? Or do I put the club first and swallow my pride, knowing it will leave me open to future censorship?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

At times like this, I refer to the good book...

Thou shalt not take the name of Darry Hancock in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh Darryl Hancock's name in vain.

 

[Juan Albion]

At times like this, I refer to the good book...

Thou shalt not take the name of Darry Hancock in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh Darryl Hancock's name in vain.

Does that apply if the subject is the anti-Christ?

 

[Easy 10]

Its ice hockey.
No-one will read it anyway.

 

[Nibble]

Tell them if you get a solicitors letter asking you to remove the content you may consider removing it (if you do get that letter, remove it!)

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

On that I must give way to you sir.

Seriously though fight it. If it's your opinion I think its a liberty forcing you to retract.

 

[Juan Albion]

May I introduce you to the referee in question?

Note: a) the direction in which he is looking
and b) the location of the play

 

[Lokki 7]

The one with the biggest tits?

 

[Nibble]

May I introduce you to the referee in question?

Note: a) the direction in which he is looking
and b) the location of the play

Is he texting?

 

[little al]

Its ice hockey.
No-one will read it anyway.

Is the correct answer. I didn't even open the link.

 

[Juan Albion]

Is the correct answer. I didn't even open the link.

Actually it has a big readership, worldwide in fact. But mostly here in Canada where hockey is even more important than Jade Goody.

 

[Nibble]

Actually it has a big readership, worldwide in fact. But mostly here in Canada where hockey is even more important than Jade Goody.

Both of 'em died a death in England.

 

[crasher]

Go to the press with it.

They'll run a "league threatens censorship" story and they'll back down looking stupid.

Trust me - this will work.

 

[Harley S]

Surely, a letter from you to the authorities stating that the website is independent, you write on a voluntary basis & these are your personal views should do it. Therefore the club are not in any way responsible.

 

[little al]

Surely, a letter from you to the authorities stating that the website is independent, you write on a voluntary basis & these are your personal views should do it. Therefore the club are not in any way responsible.

Or a note on the site saying that all views are personal and not connected to the club, why bother to write to them.


Ask the owner of this site how he gets away with it, there is always reports slagging of refs on here and any other footy site)

Unless, if even though unpaid, your site is the official site, I cant see what the f*** they can do to the club. The club has requested you remove it, you say f*** off.

 

[Nibble]

Surely, a letter from you to the authorities stating that the website is independent, you write on a voluntary basis & these are your personal views should do it. Therefore the club are not in any way responsible.

VERY good point

 

[Gully]

Unless, if even though unpaid, your site is the official site, I cant see what the f*** they can do to the club. The club has requested you remove it, you say f*** off.

Fair point, it would be like a referee taking the Albion to court for something posted on here...which if you think about the things people posted about Phil Prosser on NSC, could have had serious implications had anyone taken them seriously!

What you posted is a personal opinion, nothing more nothing less, I am guessing that you didn't break any laws so what on Earth is the problem?

 

[beorhthelm]

theres not even a moral question, if its independent then they have no right to ask you. those years you have recieved some money, was it invoiced or cash? might blur the waters alittle if invoiced, but even then you simply state you ceased your association with the club. if you give in to the clubs request you are effectivly acknowleding an official link i'd have thought. write back to both the club and the authority telling them to get knotted and drag up some local laws about freedom of speech.

if it comes down to the wire, ditch the website and quit, making sure to let all the local and national press know about it.

can you imagine the FA asking NSC to remove a comment?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Maybe you should post the email address of the association on here so the good and great of NSC can voice their opinion on your behalf

 

[Juan Albion]

The question of whether it is the official site or not is somewhat cloudy. It has been 100% owned, managed, written by me its entire existence, but it has been regarded by the club as the official site (not even sure the new owners who bought the club 5 years ago realise they don't own it). However, last season the league insisted all clubs have their official website with a hosting company they had contracted to (and threatened a weekly fine until we complied), so we simply put up a single 'official' page on their server that suggested fans would find more information on the 'unofficial site' (mine) and carried on.