Of Oz, where they do the moderation quick-step

There's been plenty of soul-searching on Australian weblogs this week regarding what's said online and how it's managed - that's right, the ole defamation and moderation two-step has been in full swing.
Firstly, a very fine post and discussion on writing and blogging appeared on Sarsaparilla early in the week - Georgina Hibberd had found a post on BuzzBalls'n'Hype about writers being expected to blog as a marketing exercise and posed some useful questions to some of the usual suspects at said space, who acquitted themselves magnificently. Writers as Bloggers is full of great small posts (so to speak) on what writers do about the online/offline thing, and showed how Australian blogging can really hit its straps, to the surprise of this reader who has been somewhat critical of her regional area of the blogosphere for some time. The Sars crowd gave a great demonstration of what blogging is all about - some were journos, some poets and novelists, others critics and writers of fine polemic, and one has done just about everything.

Signs that the literature blog is being read by those 'in the know' have been on the increase in recent weeks, and during this post just one link to a writer's work was sufficient to bring him into the conversation to discuss the all-consuming concern of the online flaming of public figures.

James Bradley, author of Resurrectionist, spoke of his concerns about revealing a side of himself online that he wasn't sure he wanted to expose in the first place, after having said some very kind things about online discussion in a review in the morning paper (taken up by yours truly
and thrown into the fray.) Journalist Kath Wilson, pronounced herself tired of expending energy combating tendentious individuals online simply because she feels they should be answered.

I interspersed some ghastly news about a Canadian blogger being sued, just to keep people on their toes, and Kerryn Goldsworthy, Alison Croggon and Chris Boyd weighed in with meaty contributions.

This is not intended to be a complete Reblog post - not only do I want you to read the whole thing!! but I am getting to the point of the roundup, namely that Kath Wilson (or Weathergirl as she is also known) also posted over at Jeff Sparrow's LeftWrites, where a discussion ensued on moderation - Jeff and Jill Sparrow moderate that site for the express purpose of providing a troll-free space for people to engage in purposeful debate rather than having it derailed by the more melodramatically inclined, occasionally libellous and outrageous members of the Australian blogging community (often known as 'Right Wing Death Beasts', but in fact inhabiting several shades of the political spectrum, and probably better known as old-fashioned Australian muckrakers.)

The discussion at LeftWrites, tempered as it is by site-owner moderation, covers the usual stomping ground but surprisingly includes the cheerful admission by one occasional offender that he believes a 'three strikes' moderation policy is most useful. Hmmm,  so if you ignore them they really do learn something after all...

In the meantime, doing some uni research, I did some personal updating on The Guardian Unlimited's Terms and Conditions, which have evolved quite a bit in the six months or so that their megablog, Comment is Free, has been up and running. I do wish, for my essay's sake, that I
had taken some 'WayBack' (or Furl) snapshots of their policy so I could track this evolution a little more scientifically - all I can say is, hey, now the commenters provide insurance for the paper!! Whoooaaaa.

            7. Submitting text for publication on Guardian Unlimited

Users of our site may submit material for publication in various areas of the site, including our Talk boards, blogs and Been There travel tips service. We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy.

If you want to submit material to us for publication on Guardian Unlimited, you may do so on the following terms and conditions:

(i) publication of any material you submit to us will be at our sole discretion. We reserve the right to make additions or deletions to the text or graphics prior to publication, or to refuse publication

(ii) you grant us a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide licence to republish any material you submit to us in any format, including without limitation print and electronic format

(iii) you warrant to us that any material you submit to us is your own original work and that you own the copyright and any other relevant rights

(iv) you warrant that the material you submit is not obscene, offensive, defamatory of any person or otherwise illegal

(v) you agree not to post material which is deliberately intended to upset other users

(vi) you acknowledge that any breach of these warranties may cause us damage or loss and you agree to indemnify us in full and permanently
against any third party liabilities, claims, costs, loss or damage we incur as a result of publishing material you submit to us, including consequential losses.

(vii) we reserve the right to remove your access to individual services completely if we believe you are abusing the services in any way.

So if you say something tacky at The Guardian - you are in the poo all on your own. (And where else, I wonder?)

And finally, Ken Parish at Club Troppo has posted on how Australian defamation law is being modified to include blog content, with particular reference to the implications for commenters on the posts of others, and linkers to contentious posts.
Apparently a new uniform Defamation Law has been developed and Ken's piece opens up a number of things we all need to be aware of here in Oz, which has traditionally had pretty tough defamation laws anyway. This post includes some remarks on the conditions under which one might be found liable in court, and Ken has also linked to a very good article by David Lindsay of the University of Melbourne. (Maybe I'm going to revise that essay topic....)

The overriding impression I carry away from all this? Proprietors of an online social space still have plenty of choice over how they manage it, and are certainly in a position to test the ever-developing law on what's said online - quite possibly to their detriment.

What questions am I left with? Namely, where else is an indemnity policy like The Guardian's used - is it widespread in online media sites? or is it something new and are they just barely running ahead of the tide?

Cross-posted to Library Sputnik.