Question about libellous comments or 'wayward remarks'

Time Magazine

nesf wrote: »

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.

With what I imagine are Ireland's two most referenced/popular discussion fora now both in legal difficulties, wouldn't it be dandy if our parliament did something to clarify the situation before leaving it up to the vagaries of whosoever is on the Bench on that particular day? That said, wasn't there a slight reference to 'electronic transmission' in a recent statute regarding this sort of thing?

I think Boards and politics.ie could do with sending letters to each of the major political parties on this issue. Unfortunately, David Cochrane's former membership of the Progressive Democrats and his association with Libertas will not garner him much sympathy from the mainstream parties. However Boards is an undeniably positive democratic* medium and as such should receive certain privileges as an innocent publisher assuming it is not negligent in its duty. This could require an adaptation of standard libel jurisprudence. More reasonably, a statute stating something along the lines of "in the presence of adequate quality controls, the burden of innocent transmission of libel in user-generated electronic media is not on the broadcaster" could be acceptable to all sides.

*In effect, not process.

Villain

BTW I think it should be made clear that the issue with the other site was comments were made that could not be seen as Fair comment as a defence under the Libel laws.

I started a thread here a few weeks ago about Fair comment and the Libel laws.

BJJDUB

nesf wrote: »

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.

I think we are completely on the same page -

My Thoughts for the moderators is to consider the possible not just the probable. Example - could a post lead to the possiblity that Boards would have to defend a legal action - If yes - eliminate it. OR Is the post unethical or immoral - If yes - eliminate it.

Crash

See the problem with considering the possible, BJJDUB, is that it would literally shut this site down as an information hub. A large number of posts, because WE can't go and double check the background to them, could be perfectly correct or slightly libellous. Its very easy for deleting such posts to become well past the point.

BJJDUB

çrash_000 wrote: »

See the problem with considering the possible, BJJDUB, is that it would literally shut this site down as an information hub. A large number of posts, because WE can't go and double check the background to them, could be perfectly correct or slightly libellous. Its very easy for deleting such posts to become well past the point.

Definitely a dilemma!

"Mr. Moderator did you consider the possibility of the post being libelous"

If - "No."

"Then how did can you argue that you took every possible precaution to ensure that your site was not used to transmit or publish a libelous comment"

If - "Yes"

"Then after consideration - you permitted the libelous comment to be transmitted or published".

Bit of a catch 22 ????

Moriarty

From what I remember when I had a read about this ages ago, it was being proposed in various places that online forums and structurally similar online systems could be afforded carrier rights similar to telecom/post/courier companies who are also not responsible for what is transmitted over/through their networks. That would place responsibility firmly with the poster, as it should be.

Sherifu

Moriarty wrote: »

From what I remember when I had a read about this ages ago, it was being proposed in various places that online forums and structurally similar online systems could be afforded carrier rights similar to telecom/post/courier companies who are also not responsible for what is transmitted over/through their networks. That would place responsibility firmly with the poster, as it should be.

Stop that pidgeon

lostexpectation

i know every time we type we PUBLISH, its pity there couldn't be lessers levels of discussion, some sort of milti-user pgp/skype like discussion board... i wonder has any 'private' board been sued, where only a limted amount of people can see it.

cast_iron

Moriarty wrote: »

From what I remember when I had a read about this ages ago, it was being proposed in various places that online forums and structurally similar online systems could be afforded carrier rights similar to telecom/post/courier companies who are also not responsible for what is transmitted over/through their networks. That would place responsibility firmly with the poster, as it should be.

I would disagree with such sentiments.
If a forum was set up purely to libel Company X, but the owner never actually posted on it, should he be entirely innocent? I don't think so.

Online forums are not akin to "telecom/post/courier companies". Online forum owners should be (and are) well aware as to contents of their "conduit" services, as it is somewhat practical. Obviously, we don't expect a mobile phone company to be responsible for people organising a bank job just because they used their phone system to plan it. However, if they planned it on a forum I provided, and I was made aware of the planning, and I failed to remove the material, then I would be partly responsible.

Along with ISPs, telecom/post/courier companies cannot reasonably be expected to constantly monitor all the traffic on their networks. Online forums can.

DeVore

To answer the question posed in the OP....

1. Posters are covered by the DPA which says that one company will not release personal details to another. No matter how much the other company stamps its feet.

2. A court order of "discovery" gets passed that.

3. This is the very grounds on which the MCD case is being taken and defended.

4. I'm very glad that lot so of people are realising what I've been banging on about for years. Its a pity it seems to have claimed p.ie... if anyone knows what is going on there can they drop me a PM?

DeV.

GuanYin

Of course you are responsible for your own posts. We view it that way, so why shouldn't anyone else.

Regarding the issue at hand, I think we're doing ok on politics, barring a few blips which are dealt with quickly thanks to posters and mods alike.

I do think our current policy of not discussing politics idea is extending to over this matter though.

BJJDUB

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

Of course you are responsible for your own posts. We view it that way, so why shouldn't anyone else.

Regarding the issue at hand, I think we're doing ok on politics, barring a few blips which are dealt with quickly thanks to posters and mods alike.

I do think our current policy of not discussing politics idea is extending to over this matter though.

I agree in that I believe you should be responsible for your own posts. However in the case of libel on a forum site or "board" how does the victim of the libel seek recourse if the person committing the libel is anonymous or in fact using the board to hide his or her identity.

Some moderators have stated in this topic that they would not provide the identity of the poster unless order by a court - Isn't that having your cake and eating it. - "I won't take responsibility - and I won't tell you who is responsible either" ??????????????????

Crash

Well we don't really have very much information as to identifying the poster.

Email and IP address are the only things that could really be given,boards has no clues other than those and what posts are readily available to provide identity of the poster.

Law firms, however, don't quite seem to realise that if they want to identify someone off an internet forum, and have a case that can't be pulled apart, that they have to go through legal routes with the forum, with the isp, etc. - otherwise they're gonna have a ****e case against the person who libelled them.

The lazier option, which seems to be taken a lot quicker, is sue the forum. Which, irrespective of whether libel is committed or not, should never be supported. because otherwise it makes a forum like this, and like p.ie completely untenable.

nesf

BJJDUB wrote: »

Some moderators have stated in this topic that they would not provide the identity of the poster unless order by a court - Isn't that having your cake and eating it. - "I won't take responsibility - and I won't tell you who is responsible either" ??????????????????

Well, no. There's no onus on me to provide any information on anyone on this site. If they want to know they can get a court to order DeV and the lads to give out the information. Us lowly moderators couldn't give much info anyway, I don't know anyone's IP address or any more information than that which is publicly available to everyone else. Our opinions don't really matter that much, it's the admin's (ie the owner's) opinions that are law around here. We just abide by their wishes on how the site is meant to be run.

If legal action is taken against this site, I've no more involvement in the process than any other user on this site when it comes down to it.

BJJDUB

çrash_000 wrote: »

Well we don't really have very much information as to identifying the poster.

And therein lies the problem.

Would the board not be similar to newspaper? The editor of a newspaper has final say in what will be published and therefore the newspaper carries a burden of responsibility.

Should the board carry a similar burden as commentary posted to the board could be far more reaching and damaging - by way of example check out the creative labs forum last night !

By the way - I hope my comments are taken in the manner that I intend - that is, to encourage educated and enlightening debate in relation this topic. I am not anti-board !

BJJDUB

nesf wrote: »

Well, no. There's no onus on me to provide any information on anyone on this site. If they want to know they can get a court to order DeV and the lads to give out the information. Us lowly moderators couldn't give much info anyway, I don't know anyone's IP address or any more information than that which is publicly available to everyone else. Our opinions don't really matter that much, it's the admin's (ie the owner's) opinions that are law around here. We just abide by their wishes on how the site is meant to be run.

If legal action is taken against this site, I've no more involvement in the process than any other user on this site when it comes down to it.

What would the basis of defence be for a moderator if the moderator was attached to legal action. Would it be similar to a newpaper editor ?

DeVore

BJJDub, the newspapers decide to publish after they read it. We dont get that luxury and I dont believe that we should be held accountable unless it is brought to our attention and we STILL do nothing about it..

By the way, we dont support anonymous posting. The day someone arrives at my door with a court order for a users details, they will be met with a detailed pack, wrapped in a ribbon.

You own your own words.

DeV.

GuanYin

BJJDUB wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.

Would the board not be similar to newspaper? The editor of a newspaper has final say in what will be published and therefore the newspaper carries a burden of responsibility.

Because we're not a newspaper. We don't report news. Boards.ie is a discussion forum. It is a site to facilitate discussion online, not direct it. A real world analogy would have us more like a pub or community hall than a newspaper or media outlet.

Unlike print media, boards.ie has no agenda. Sure the mods have opinions, but we don't (or shouldn't) let them bias the conversation (barring the moderation of incitement of hatred/racism etc etc)

Boards.ie mods monitor the traffic and quickly eliminates anything potentially libellous. After that, the site shouldn't be held accountable.

If someone wants to go after the poster, that is up to them, boards.ie mods aren't part of that equation.

nesf

BJJDUB wrote: »

What would the basis of defence be for a moderator if the moderator was attached to legal action. Would it be similar to a newpaper editor ?

I imagine that it is the admins who are viewed as being in "control". If I was brought up for libel I imagine it'd be no different than if any other user was brought up for libel. If one of the admins committed libel then it'd be more complicated I'd imagine.

BJJDUB

DeV.

The fact that a board allows the publishing of comments before examination is where the problems could lie for the board in a libel action.

PSI.

The discussion in the pub could lead to a slander law suit !!!

Consider this -

If Mr. X was libelled on a forum - Could Mr. X issue a letter of claim and could the letter of claim become an "O'Byrne letter" directed at the forum, the owners of the forum, the moderators etc.????

Villain

Its simple, you own your words and while Boards and the your ISP may not willingly give your details to someone to pursue a libel case, a court in order in each case will provide them with the identity of the IP address, Email address and the ISP will provide a name and address based on that IP address on that date.

Anyone who posts here thinking otherwise is been foolish, the Libel laws while complex aren't beyond understanding.

GuanYin

BJJDUB wrote: »

The discussion in the pub could lead to a slander law suit !!!

Could do, but the pub wouldn't be held accountable or required to hunt down the person involved.

Sherifu

BJJDUB wrote: »

The fact that a board allows the publishing of comments before examination is where the problems could lie for the board in a libel action.

Pre-moderate all posts? Is that what you're saying?

BJJDUB

Villain wrote: »

Its simple, you own your words

A very dangerous assumption. If a board took that as fact they leave themselves open for slaughter in a court. Could the board be held responsible as the conduit for the message - Just look at p.ie - it seems to me that people posting in this topic are concerned for p.ie. That in itself adds substance to my argument.

BJJDUB

Sherifu wrote: »

Pre-moderate all posts? Is that what you're saying?

I don't have the answer. I just want to provide some thought for boards and the moderators to consider - hopefully these thoughts will help in a small way in preventing boards.ie and the moderators from getting involved in litigation. - What I'm saying is - I'm on your side but I'm playing devils advocate

Villain

BJJDUB wrote: »

A very dangerous assumption. If a board took that as fact they leave themselves open for slaughter in a court. Could the board be held responsible as the conduit for the message - Just look at p.ie - it seems to me that people posting in this topic are concerned for p.ie. That in itself adds substance to my argument.

So if I post you a letter libelling you An Post are at risk if you take a Libel case?

As I said you own you words, p.ie has been asked to remove the offending posts and give information about those who posted the comments.

javaboy

Sherifu wrote: »

Pre-moderate all posts? Is that what you're saying?

No, I don't think they were saying to do that but maybe from a legal point* of view, it might be the only bullet proof protection from a libel action. I think BJJDUB was saying that the very fact that posts aren't premoderated possibly means boards.ie (and most other internet boards) are knowingly providing a means to someone to libel someone else.

One thing that interests me is whether there is any difference between an ISP/hosting company giving someone some webspace and Boards.ie giving someone a medium. They both essentially give an opportunity to libel on the internet. Anybody got any links to relevant cases in far off distant lands?

*imo - I don't know nothin' about no law-making

BJJDUB

Villain wrote: »

So if I post you a letter libelling you An Post are at risk if you take a Libel case?

As I said you own you words, p.ie has been asked to remove the offending posts and give information about those who posted the comments.

Not quite the same. Firstly if I send a letter through an post - an post are deivering the letter - not publishing the letter ???????

An post could only be compared to an email provider not a forum based website ???????

The above is my opinion not legal opinion

BJJDUB

javaboy wrote: »

No, I don't think they were saying to do that but maybe from a legal point* of view, it might be the only bullet proof protection from a libel action. I think BJJDUB was saying that the very fact that posts aren't premoderated possibly means boards.ie (and most other internet boards) are knowingly providing a means to someone to libel someone else.

One thing that interests me is whether there is any difference between an ISP/hosting company giving someone some webspace and Boards.ie giving someone a medium. They both essentially give an opportunity to libel on the internet. Anybody got any links to relevant cases in far off distant lands?

*imo - I don't know nothin' about no law-making

Touchdown Javaboy !

As far as the hosting company - would they not be the "newsagent" rather than the "newspaper"

As for relevant links - I think and I posted this before - www.rate-your-solicitor.com experiences should be looked at.

Villain

BJJDUB wrote: »

Not quite the same. Firstly if I send a letter through an post - an post are deivering the letter - not publishing the letter ???????

An post could only be compared to an email provider not a forum based website ???????

The above is my opinion not legal opinion

Well I think anyone that posts anything and doesn't think they are responsible for the content of that post are been foolish, you can debate what responsibilty the site has legally and perhaps the case of the record companies against Eircom will give some more clarifcation on this matter.