Boards legal liability

Treora

What is the legal liability to posters and boards.ie for posting on boards.ie? I only ask this as I see so many banned topics.

What options are open to boards.ie - a company limited by guarentee or the hosting of the servers in a different juristiction? Could boards be a charity in the future :P

I'd imagine that posters are libel for any potential libel/slander (depends on how a judge views discussion boards).


[Please move if this if it is in the wrong forum]

Tar.Aldarion

I think boards could be a religion and then blasphemy can work in our favour.

orestes

I'm not sure of the ins and outs, but from what I know I think a recent legal ruling set the precedant that boards is not liable for anything negative said on the site by users about a company (the MCD ban was lifted accordingly). Boards will not disclose personal info about any users unless there is a legitimate and serious legal reason to do so. I'm sure an admin will clear up the technicalities.

What banned topics do you mean op? Nothing is blanket-banned for discussion here these days as far as I know

Cabaal

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think boards could be a religion and then blasphemy can work in our favour.

hmm now thats a good idea, next census fill out Boards.ie :pac:

Silverfish

Cabaal wrote: »

hmm not thats a good idea, next census fill out Boards.ie :pac:

Definitely. Better than that jedi crap that's not funny.
Oh and also, we can have 40 holy days of obligation at least too.

Cabaal

Silverfish wrote: »

Definitely. Better than that jedi crap that's not funny.
Oh and also, we can have 40 holy days of obligation at least too.

42 is a much better number, everyone knows that

:pac:

Silverfish

Cabaal wrote: »

42 is a much better number, everyone knows that

:pac:

Dammit no thanks button.

fred funk }{

Boards will not disclose personal info about any users unless there is a legitimate and serious legal reason to do so. I'm sure an admin will clear up the technicalities.

Can you elaborate on this please and what info does boards have on users that can be passed on.
Thanks.

muckwarrior

orestes wrote: »

Nothing is blanket-banned for discussion here these days as far as I know

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055150794

Ponster

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this please and what info does boards have on users that can be passed on.
Thanks.

All your signup info (I think) + IP address + times of connection.

It is a requirement of Irish law.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Treora wrote: »

What is the legal liability to posters and boards.ie for posting on boards.ie? I only ask this as I see so many banned topics.

What options are open to boards.ie - a company limited by guarentee or the hosting of the servers in a different juristiction? Could boards be a charity in the future :P

I'd imagine that posters are libel for any potential libel/slander (depends on how a judge views discussion boards).


[Please move if this if it is in the wrong forum]

I don't know but the fact that you can't edit/delete your posts after 48 hrs I would suspect may be important if there was a case. Other people (id mods) can edit or delete posts and threads and you can't see em then.

Treora

orestes wrote: »

What banned topics do you mean op? Nothing is blanket-banned for discussion here these days as far as Iknow

Coincidentally it was the one that Muckwarrior pointed out. Also I tried posting on MCD long long ago and got zinged, but I didn't know that there was a ban at that time.

mike65

Cabaal wrote: »

42 is a much better number, everyone knows that

:pac:

+1

eh, I mean I agree. Not that the answer is, in fact 43.

orestes

muckwarrior wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055150794

Treora wrote: »

Coincidentally it was the one that Muckwarrior pointed out.

Wasn't aware of that so I'm afraid I can't give you any info on it, my bad, sorry guys.

My name is URL

Treora wrote: »

Coincidentally it was the one that Muckwarrior pointed out. Also I tried posting on MCD long long ago and got zinged, but I didn't know that there was a ban at that time.

I guess if there's a chance that a group may sue boards.ie for defamatory statements posted by its members, that it's easier to ban outright discussion of that group rather than to moderate and have to decide what's acceptable or not.

There's probably not much liability to users for posting potentially defamatory stuff because it's boards' responsibility as to what it contains

don't know for sure though =p

Cabaal

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I don't know but the fact that you can't edit/delete your posts after 48 hrs I would suspect may be important if there was a case. Other people (id mods) can edit or delete posts and threads and you can't see em then.

Mods of the forum and admins can see post edit history though and deleted posts

Hank Scorpio

cnuts

ddosing and money threats is the way to go

Eoin

orestes wrote: »

I'm not sure of the ins and outs, but from what I know I think a recent legal ruling set the precedant that boards is not liable for anything negative said on the site by users about a company (the MCD ban was lifted accordingly). Boards will not disclose personal info about any users unless there is a legitimate and serious legal reason to do so. I'm sure an admin will clear up the technicalities.

I think Boards.ie still have a responsibility to edit or delete defamatory posts, but within a reasonable time frame.

DeVore

My understanding of the recent ruling is that it affords us the protection of european law whic in turn deems us to be Internet Software Providers. We still have a responsibility to remove libelous* material when it is brought to our attention but we can no longer be sued for publishing something before we even knew about it being on our site! So, we have a partial reprieve from our victorian libel laws, for which, much thanks. :^/

DeV.
*How we are to know whats libelous and what isnt is another interesting point. And when I say "interesting point" I mean, "crock of sh*t left in the lap of the populace".

Red Sleeping Beauty

DeVore wrote: »

My understanding of the recent ruling is that it affords us the protection of european law whic in turn deems us to be Internet Software Providers. We still have a responsibility to remove libelous* material when it is brought to our attention but we can no longer be sued for publishing something before we even knew about it being on our site! So, we have a partial reprieve from our victorian libel laws, for which, much thanks. :^/

DeV.
*How we are to know whats libelous and what isnt is another interesting point. And when I say "interesting point" I mean, "crock of sh*t left in the lap of the populace".

Is there any mention of the Internet in the new defamation bill do you know ?

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

My understanding of the recent ruling is that it affords us the protection of european law whic in turn deems us to be Internet Software Providers. We still have a responsibility to remove libelous* material when it is brought to our attention but we can no longer be sued for publishing something before we even knew about it being on our site! So, we have a partial reprieve from our victorian libel laws, for which, much thanks. :^/

DeV.
*How we are to know whats libelous and what isnt is another interesting point. And when I say "interesting point" I mean, "crock of sh*t left in the lap of the populace".

Hey Dev, could you post a link to the relevant judgment. I know it was posted before but I'd love to give it a read.

FWIW, and obviously this should be taken as personal opinion, I am sure you know that the defintion of libelous is basically anything that lowers a person in the eyes of right minded members of society. The "person" can be a company or institution and "members of society" is loosely defined as an appropriate group to which the impugned person belongs. (for example accusing a bridge player of cheating publicly may not lower them in my eyes but to other bridge players it may be a total scandal, the latter group is the one the court will give credence to)

Also, quite obviously, if the "libelous" comment is fair or true then it cannot be libelous.

To be fair you are in a horrible spot. Even with the most intense moderation in the world you'd never catch every comment that could be construed as libelous or defamatory. Although I am pretty sure that your liability only begins when you become aware of the relevant statement and then fail to act.

Still, if you could link that judgment I'd love to give it a good read.

Tar.Aldarion

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, quite obviously, if the "libelous" comment is fair or true then it cannot be libelous.

Actually I've heard different from mister lawyer admin on here, but can't recall why. Will have to ask him about that! I think it was somehting like if it was true it could still be libel if it damages the business/gives a bad image of it... or some such. Not sure of the circumstances.

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Actually I've heard different from mister lawyer admin on here, but can't recall why. Will have to ask him about that! I think it was somehting like if it was true it could still be libel if it damages the business/gives a bad image of it... or some such. Not sure of the circumstances.

I would be amazed if that were true. Even if it were done maliciously I cannot see a situation where the courts would award damages where a person spoke the truth. Unless it was in violation of some other contractual duty or duty of care anyway.

Tar.Aldarion

Deleted User wrote: »

I would be amazed if that were true. Even if it were done maliciously I cannot see a situation where the courts would award damages where a person spoke the truth. Unless it was in violation of some other contractual duty or duty of care anyway.

I think this is where I saw it mentioned, few posts in the thread. And in another thread that I'm to lazy to look for.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60479618&postcount=49

Would like to know when defamation can be applied to get a conviction for a true statement!

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think this is where I saw it mentioned, few posts in the thread. And in another thread that I'm to lazy to look for.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60479618&postcount=49

Would like to know when defamation can be applied to get a conviction for a true statement!

Ah, yes I see the issue now.

What he is saying is true. The things he lists in his original post a few above the one you link to about fair comment etc being defenses is true. I merely mean to say that if the statement is true I highly doubt you will be convicted. I did not say you would not end up in court.

Treora

Treora wrote: »

What is the legal liability to posters and boards.ie for posting on boards.ie? I only ask this as I see so many banned topics.

OK, I just read the judgment in Mulvaney & ors -v-The Sporting Exchange Ltd trading as Betfair and I am pretty sure of a couple of points:

1. Boards is covered by the E-Commerce directive so long as it sticks rigidly to Art. 14.1 (a) & (b) of said Directive.

2. That will not cover Boards posters who shall remain liable for what they say.


Remember this is by no means a legal opinion.

Tar.Aldarion

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, yes I see the issue now.

What he is saying is true. The things he lists in his original post a few above the one you link to about fair comment etc being defenses is true. I merely mean to say that if the statement is true I highly doubt you will be convicted. I did not say you would not end up in court.

Ah ok.


And in the rare case you get convicted for something like this when it is known to be true, what could be the circumstances? As when I look it up I get that defamation is only 'usually' false statements which are convicted.

Like on the defamation wiki page where 'the truth of the defamatory statement was irrelevant'?

muckwarrior

So what's the story with the MAI ban? Was it just overlooked when removing the MCD stickies or is that case different in some way?

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, I just read the judgment in Mulvaney & ors -v-The Sporting Exchange Ltd trading as Betfair and I am pretty sure of a couple of points:

1. Boards is covered by the E-Commerce directive so long as it sticks rigidly to Art. 14.1 (a) & (b) of said Directive.

2. That will not cover Boards posters who shall remain liable for what they say.

This is effectively how we are playing it. For the non-legal, this directive basically treats us as a service provider, which gives us a special "benefit of the doubt" sort of clause when dealing with defamation. Where defamation occurs on boards, boards.ie are not liable provided that the defamatory material is removed as soon as it is brought to our attention.

Posters do not have similar protection and you are liable (more-or-less) for what you say on boards. While boards will not hand out your information to anyone willy-nilly and will comply fully with the Data protection Act, if an individual sends in the correct legal documentation to boards and has jumped through the correct legal hoops to secure this information (i.e. going to court), then boards will, to paraphrase Dev, "give it to them in a nice box, gift-wrapped with a bow".

So what's the story with the MAI ban? Was it just overlooked when removing the MCD stickies or is that case different in some way?

We've been looking at it for a number of weeks. It appears that nobody actually has any information on why this ban was put in place, but we don't want to lift it just yet, just in case.