Question about libellous comments or 'wayward remarks'

darkman2

Just wondering about something. Some forums I know of, incl this one, have been the targets of potential legal action by various groups or companies. This seems to be getting - well not 'worse' - but much more frequent. Can someone clear up the 'rules' surrounding posters rights to annonimity if their posts are slanderous? For example does a forum have to protect the identity of its contributers in most circumstances? Or can a company demand details of those that have made the remarks in question whilst at the same time threatening legal action against the website in question? Would you have to hand them the details?


Im just wondering because ive seen another website, known to most here, this evening also threatened with legal action. The company in question sent them a demand for information on certain posters that made 'unwise' comments.


Id imagine that forums like this now have to take this sort of thing far more seriously then ever before. Seems to be happening more and more often. Keeps going the way it is and pretty soon what you can and cannot say will become very narrow indeed. Id always comment inside the rules but what ive seen in recent months on other forums has made me far more careful anyway.

mike65

I imagine a lawyer could make the case to a judge to force such information to be disclosed.*

I wouldn't hand over such information until I had no legal choice anyway!*

Mike.

*Not actual legal advice

Sherifu

darkman2 wrote: »

Im just wondering because ive seen another website, known to most here, this evening also threatened with legal action. The company in question sent them a demand for information on certain posters that made 'unwise' comments.

Is this the politics.ie thing?

Interesting question btw.

Hennessy

Sherifu wrote: »

Is this the politics.ie thing?

Interesting question btw.

Agreed.

I too am all excited! Damn P,IE

BJJDUB

IMO - Boards should carry a responsibility as to the content of the post - just like newspapers.

Truth is the absolute defence against slander or libel. Taking that logic - then slander and libel are lies - usually created to hurt people (or entities) by individuals with hidden agendas.

A board is a conduit for opinion, knowledge and many other things - a board should not become, or allowed to become, a conduit to spread lies by unscrupulous anonymous members. Therefore at the very least boards should remove any posts where a question arises as to whether the post is libelous.

This is my personal opinion - it is not a legal opinion.

Hope I don't get banned now

BJJDUB

mike65 wrote: »

I wouldn't hand over such information until I had no legal choice anyway!*

Even in a case where it is clear that libel has been committed ?

darkman2

Sherifu wrote: »

Is this the politics.ie thing?

Interesting question btw.

Thanks, thought it would be.

Yes that is the reference. Its there for all to see - www.politics.ie - a blatant 'or else' demand for the details of 6 individual posters. I dont post on that forum but I found the letter there 'interesting' to say the least.

therecklessone

Some interesting reading here re. a recent case taken in the UK High Court by directors of Sheffield Wednesday FC against the owner of a fan's forum to identify a number of posters following defamatory posts appearing on the site.

In total, the judge ordered the disclosure of information to help identify 4 of the 11 posters.

A relevant factor in this decision was a term in the site's conditions of use, to which members must agree, forbidding defamatory language on the bulletin board. He [the Judge] also noted the absence of any policy of confidentiality for the benefit of users, implying that such a policy might give a website a better chance to protect its users' identities.

Stefan Paciorek, a partner with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that the operator of this site did the right thing in letting the court decide whether he should reveal the names of these people or not.

"The guidance is really interesting. It's possibly the first case of online defamation we've had in this country where the right to privacy has outweighed the right to protect a reputation simply because defamatory comments were trivial," said Paciorek.

"Website operators might consider reviewing their terms of use in light of the court's guidance that a confidentiality policy can better protect your users' privacy," he added.

Judgement viewable here

I'd echo the comments of others, I would not reveal any information without a court order instructing me to do so.

That letter sent to politics.ie appears to be a shot in the dark, demanding names and addresses when all that is required to register for their forums (as with most boards) is a valid e-mail address.

popebenny16

whilst it is a simple matter to make an application to a court for an order that this information be given, the question begs itself as to what info is given. Say i have many hotmail accounts, and I post from an internet cafe in Caple Street.

See?

so far we haven't seen a civil case go to a judge involving Internet defamation in Ireland but i would imagine that the focus of attention would be in the ISP, as opposed to the individual poster or the publishing site - although they would be parties to a suit as a matter of course - purely on the basis that you're looking for damages in such an action. That said, the further away from the poster you go the harder the issue of causality and remoteness become.

Interesting, nonetheless.

Basic and simple form of defence is to produce regular and fairly strict moderation of the site in question. Once you can establish that you have done all you can do to prevent the publication, and then removed it as soon as you have noticed the publication or have been alerted to its publication then you have a fairly strong defence.

BJJDUB

popebenny16 wrote: »

Basic and simple form of defence is to produce regular and fairly strict moderation of the site in question. Once you can establish that you have done all you can do to prevent the publication, and then removed it as soon as you have noticed the publication or have been alerted to its publication then you have a fairly strong defence.

Lets take a hypothetical scenario.

A poster libels Mr. X with a post. During the time between the post and the removal of the post the content is read and the result causes Mr. X a consequential loss.

Should Mr. X be entitled to compensation for his loss. If "NO" - Why?

If "YES" who is responsible for providing the compensation?

Rb

True libellous posts should be reported and insta-deleted. Negative feedback, however, is a different thing and I lol at the companies taking legal action because their customers don't think good of them.

I'd hope Boards would never disclose my personal info though.

cornbb

I cannot see how an internet forum could be expected to accept the same responsibilities as a traditional publisher. No team of moderators could be expected to verify the truth/accuracy of every post made in the same way a journalist is expected to verify his/her sources for a newspaper article. Even newspapers are given the leeway of publishing corrections/clarifications. Where do sites like Blogger, Wordpress, YouTube or even Facebook legally stand on issues like this? They are essentially publishers in the same sense as boards.ie.

It seems to me that the Internet is still largely an untested legal grey area, at least in Ireland.

On an aside, fair play to our Politics mods for avoiding potential trouble, I was always under the impression that moderation in that forum was a bit too much on the cautious side but I can see now that I was wrong.

Overheal

Maybe we should just move all of the servers offshore in international waters and tell everyone to **** off we'll say what we want.

Hagar

It's quite amusing to see the might of the Irish legal system being thrown into trying to find anonymous posters on the internet who might be lying or might be telling the truth when near saturation by Gardaí (or so we are told) of a single Limerick suburb can't stop regular shoot outs between drug gangs with automatic weapons.

Nice to see we have our priorities right.:rolleyes:

BuffyBot

I'd hope Boards would never disclose my personal info though.

If it's court ordered, they wouldn't have a choice really.

The letter sent to to the other site is just a law firm with little understanding of how online forums work. They could apply for a court order to obtain what information the site has about the users in question, but then all they'll have is an email and IP address. They would have to get more orders to obtain that information - which is all very well if the providers are based in Ireland, but it gets even more complex if they're not.

Basic and simple form of defence is to produce regular and fairly strict moderation of the site in question. Once you can establish that you have done all you can do to prevent the publication, and then removed it as soon as you have noticed the publication or have been alerted to its publication then you have a fairly strong defence.

That's pretty much what every lawyer has told me about this issue in the past.

Jesus Wept

Just make sure to end all posts with IMO, that way you are legally covered in the event that a law-talking-guy threatens you with a bad court-thingy.*




Alternately encompass your post in Not libel tags as such:

[Not libel] Bertie Ahern is a very naughty boy. [/Not libel]*

(using strikeout further protects you).


Or talk in code. Don't use full names.

Legally you can say -

Bertie A. is a very naughty boy,
or
B. Ahern is a very naughty boy. - And no one is any the wiser as to whom you are referring too.

Or you can just refer to said person in your posts as 'Mr Infacteh'*


*imo
*imo
*imo

BJJDUB

The point is being completed missed here.

If Libel has occurred and a loss caused by that libel - then the person or entity that has been libelled has a right to recourse through the courts. ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT !!!!!!!!!

The question here is - WHO CARRIES THE LIABILITY? - i.e who gets dragged through the courts.

Moderators - don't bury you head in the sand with what you think or feel should be the case - think of how the courts could deal with this situation.

IMO:D

In the event that a court agreed that libel had occurred the court will want to know who committed the libel. If the board refused to provide that information the court could take several actions including the possibility of holding the board responsible as it is the "media" in which the libel was published. In order to negate this liability the board would have to reveal the details of the poster - or face the liability. Couple that with the fact that the board would more than likely face a huge legal bill !!!!

If the board doesn't know the identity of the poster - would the buck stop with the board?

In relation to showing that you did all you could to prevent publication - how could you prove this? - publication would have occurred on a board which is in effect an open forum i.e. in reality you have done nothing to prevent the publication. This is a very difficult scenario for boards and forums.

To suggest that using tags like NOT LIBEL is patently absurd - you cannot commit libel and then say its not libel - i.e. make a decision that would should be left to a court. Nor can you say XXXX is a naughty boy if the readers can draw a conclusion that XXXX is a particular individual.

The most important thing here to remember is that Truth is the absolute defence to libel. Therefore someone posts something that is true - there's no problem. If somebody posts something that is libelous and that libel causes a loss to someone else then the board owners could have some serious trouble.

The above is my opinon and is not legal advice.

nesf

BJJDUB wrote: »

The question here is - WHO CARRIES THE LIABILITY? - i.e who gets dragged through the courts.

Indeed. Personally I think it would far more sense for the poster and not the site to be liable unless the site refuses to disclose information on the poster. I believe people should have to accept the consequences of what they post on here and not the site.

This is not a legally informed opinion though.

Wishbone Ash

I occasionally have to soft delete potentially libellous posts about Driving Test Examiners, Driving Schools and Driving Instructors. I always send a PM explaining why the post was deleted and requesting that the poster refrain from posting such material again.

The strange thing is that recently 3 seperate offending posters all informed me, by curt PM, (after their posts were deleted) that they are "practising lawyers" and are readily available to defend their posts in court. :rolleyes:

Is it a coincidence that these 'lawyers' have all been unsuccessful in driving tests? :pac:

Feral Mutant

Overheal wrote: »

Maybe we should just move all of the servers offshore in international waters and tell everyone to **** off we'll say what we want.

Apparently a certain torrent site (don't think I'm allowed name it) tried to do that by buying Sealand a while ago, didn't get it though. I suggest a large wooden ship sailing just outside Irish waters.

BJJDUB

nesf wrote: »

Personally I think it would far more sense for the poster and not the site to be liable unless the site refuses to disclose information on the poster. I believe people should have to accept the consequences of what they post on here and not the site.

Exactly !!!!!

The next point is the moderators comments on this discussion that they would not reveal the identity of the posted unless forced to by a court.

Yet in the event that a libel has been committed the poster (who more than likely knows that the libel is just that) wants and maybe even expects anonymity - in which event the board or the owners and moderators of the board could carry the liability,

Moderators - what are your views on the following: -

In the event that a person libels somebody on this board - will you withhold information to protect the person who committed the libel at what could be the cost to the board, its owners and yourselves?

The above is my opinion and is not legal advice

BJJDUB

Feral Mutant wrote: »

Apparently a certain torrent site (don't think I'm allowed name it) tried to do that by buying Sealand a while ago, didn't get it though. I suggest a large wooden ship sailing just outside Irish waters.

I don't think locating servers "offshore" would work. It would probably raise a question of jurisdiction however - if the individual owners of the site or the entity owning the site is located in a jurisdiction where a libel has occurred could the court hold the owners responsible?

www.rate-your-solictor.com has been dragged through the Irish court several times - I think the website is hosted "off-shore" but I think the main defence that has been presented is that the people brought before the courts have stated that they have no knowledge as to who owns the site. My interpretation of this could be wrong - you goto the site and read the details and form your own opinions.

The above is my opinion and is not legal advice (I'm not qualified to give legal advice or opinion !!!!!)

Sherifu

BJJDUB wrote: »

To suggest that using tags like NOT LIBEL is patently absurd - you cannot commit libel and then say its not libel - i.e. make a decision that would should be left to a court. Nor can you say XXXX is a naughty boy if the readers can draw a conclusion that XXXX is a particular individual.

Given the picture of Lionel Hutz it wasn't a serious suggestion :pac:

*imo

BJJDUB

Sherifu wrote: »

Given the picture of Lionel Hutz it wasn't a serious suggestion :pac:

*imo

You're probably right.

But then was the post very wreckless ? - as a result of a post like that could you have people thinking - Ha I can post anything I want once I say its not libel ? - Next thing you will have boards dragged through the courts.

By the way - Darkman - excellent topic (if the word "topic" fits the lingo - forgive me if its not - I'm a newbie to boards !!!)

nesf

BJJDUB wrote: »

In the event that a person libels somebody on this board - will you withhold information to protect the person who committed the libel at what could be the cost to the board, its owners and yourselves?

The problem is that it's not as clear cut as either yourself or myself would like. It's not at all clear at the moment whether boards.ie is jointly liable for comments made on it. We are generally forced to moderate discussion as if boards was jointly liable because bluntly the average libellous comment made on here isn't worth the cost of a legal fight and bluntly it isn't my pocket that the legal fees will be coming out of so it's certainly not my decision to be making.

At some point there will be a case in Irish Law where some concrete precedent is set that will make the situation clearer but until then moderators on this site at least are very much in the right when erring on the side of caution.

Villain

You are responsible for what you post, Dev just like David Cochrane should not be held responsible if you post comments that could be libelious.

BJJDUB

nesf wrote: »

The problem is that it's not as clear cut as either yourself or myself would like. It's not at all clear at the moment whether boards.ie is jointly liable for comments made on it.

In many respects I think it is clear cut - maybe not from a legal standpoint - although you should look at the rate-your-solicitor scenario as there has been various legal actions although I'm not sure if there is precedent.

Where I believe it is clear cut, is this - I think that this should be viewed from other angles i.e. ethics and morals. Would you agree that it is unethical and immoral to be part of a scenario where Libel has been committed just because you have a legal shield?

Also from a commercial point of view - you are entirely right in these types of circumstances the moderators should always err on the side of caution.

By the way - I just read the politics.ie legal letter - it makes very interesting reading.

Sherifu

BJJDUB wrote: »

But then was the post very wreckless ? - as a result of a post like that could you have people thinking - Ha I can post anything I want once I say its not libel ? - Next thing you will have boards dragged through the courts.

I thought there was enough clues in the post for most to detect it as a pisstake. Perhaps I was wrong.

nesf

BJJDUB wrote: »

In many respects I think it is clear cut - maybe not from a legal standpoint

Which is the key problem. I don't think you and I disagree that much really, it's just that if you moderate on here the legal problem forces your hand on these issues.

nesf

Sherifu wrote: »

I thought there was enough clues in the post for most to detect it as a pisstake. Perhaps I was wrong.

I interpreted it as satire anyway.

BJJDUB

Sherifu wrote: »

I thought there was enough clues in the post for most to detect it as a pisstake. Perhaps I was wrong.

You're probably right (again). But it only takes the few that are not in the "most" to think it is not a pisstake. Then again they would want to be right idiots to post something libelous ans then finish it with this is not libel and think that would cover them !!

Maybe I things too seriously (wheres the smiley with the tears?) - then again when the possibility exists for err - eliminate it. Or at least err on the side of caution !