Big brother is watching you. That is the feeling one gets after a recent South Gauteng High Court judgement may have set something of a precedent for what we can and can’t say on the social media platforms.
It was the late legend Graham Beck who coined the phrase ‘it’s the only game in town’. And horseracing is the only game in town, particularly when it comes to anybody ever telling anybody else what they genuinely think of them. To their face, that is.
Besides the fact that it is frowned upon generally when an individual expresses their personal opinion, it is that very ‘smile while you twist the knife’ culture that has added to the explosion of popularity of sites like the africanbettingclan.com
With six million hits clocked up last month, there is no denying the existence and value of the ABC as a voice for the industy and for those who would not ordinarily have a say.
Posters, mostly using pseudonyms, generally slaughter sacred cows and vent their expert opinion on anything from teaching Mike De Kock about quarantine protocols, to casting educated decisions on the Kimberley racing surface, from the comfort of their homes on the coast many hundreds of miles away.
The comment is generally extremely informative and of a high quality and lends itself to animated straight shooting debate. While the groundbreaking case in question centred around a Facebook posting by a female who made accusatory remarks regarding alcohol and drugs about a male friend, the absence of specific laws regarding social media in this country, means that a clear message has now been sent to users.
It appears that posters will not be allowed to lurk in the shadows behind privacy settings and they may now be sued for damages as a result of defamatory remarks. Oversimplified, the core question does not appear to centre around the veracity of the comment, but around the subjectivity of whether they are of public benefit or in the public interest.
The African Betting Clan’s Dave Scott said that he was not sure of the specific facts of the case in question, but insisted that the ABC had always tried to maintain a decent image and he suggested pertinently that ‘we don’t write the scripts.’
“ We rely on the maturity of our members and posters and nobody said that it was an easy game to moderate a 24/7 open forum! But we do request details from new members before we clear them. The odd ‘rebel without a cause’ can break through and cause problems,” he admitted.
Scott went on to say that there was a fine line between freedom of speech and decency and said that he thought that the ABC had done a great job in managing a forum that is often uncomfortable to many.
He said that he also felt that they had gained respect from racing authorities and the operators, although he conceded, with a laugh, that some might be hard pressed to admit it. The bottom line? Rather just think before you ink!
