A user generated legal 'kitty' for Boards?

P_1

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere better for it.

As we know, there is a sense of fear that a court case against the site could sink it (mainly through legal fees) and as a result the good folks in the office have to tread very softly when something (for example, the recent blasphemy hullabaloo) involving the lawyers props up.

I'm just wondering if a once off donation (say a tenner) from users a la the Santa Strike Force might be of benefit, with the raised money going into a legal 'kitty' of sorts? Is such a thing legal? Will it benefit the site and cause less headaches for the guys in the office or would it cause more harm than good?

I know myself that I'd gladly give to such a 'kitty' and I am reasonably certain that a good few others would feel the same. Good idea or bad idea?

Quixoticelixer

Would this not be kind of already covered by the option users currently have to subscribe though?

MadsL

Is this not the type of thing that companies take out insurance against? I'd hope boards.ie has insurance as an employer, that should cover getting sued.

I just bought a $2m umbrella coverage for $300 a year, which includes motor liabilility, libel and slander. It's not expensive generally.

My name is URL

P_1 wrote: »

As we know, there is a sense of fear that a court case against the site could sink it (mainly through legal fees) and as a result the good folks in the office have to tread very softly when something (for example, the recent blasphemy hullabaloo) involving the lawyers props up.

Do you mean a fund which is to be used for the day-to-day legal costs of running the site, or one specifically earmarked for defending against certain types of legal actions?

Not sure how that'd work. Besides, as was mentioned elsewhere; it's not just about fear of legal costs. It seems to be more about Boards not wanting to associate itself with a particular set of views which are seen (however rightly or wrongly) as being hateful. Doesn't matter how big the site's legal war chest is if the company is at risk of being commercially damaged by what people say here.

If Boards ever does end up in court over the blasphemy law then I'd be happy to give something towards the costs, but I wouldn't necessarily want to donate towards a fund which would probably never be used as people intended.

Wibbs

MadsL wrote: »

I just bought a $2m umbrella coverage for $300 a year, which includes motor liabilility, libel and slander. It's not expensive generally.

I would suspect, though could be way wrong here, that the premiums would be based on the risks, the likelihood of being involved in legal action. So for someone like me, lovely law abiding crank that nobody listens to that I am, the premium would be low. However for a publisher like a newspaper, TV station or website like Boards, they would be far more exposed to cranks and ambulance chasers and would have much more risk of causing a legal issue in the first place. Massively so on a web forum through the users. The law goes after the publisher first. You could easily rip through a five figure sum in the courts defending yourself on a case, even one you're clearly gonna win. So those kinda media outlets premiums are gonna be a lot more than a couple of hundred quid a year. Like I say I could be way off with this, but I suspect not.

That said even the small guy can get roasted. I recall an Irish case a couple of years ago where a guy was sued and lost over a blog(100K IIRC), a blog I'd never heard of. So be careful what you say.

One thing that interests me is the comments section on newspaper sites, inc Boards "sister" site Journal.ie. I've seen some real humdingers go unmolested that would have been nuked from orbit here. Maybe they're a subtly different legal area?

MadsL

I'd pay towards a fund that would see boards.ie prosecuted under the Blasphemy Law, with the intent of getting the law repealed.

I'd also pay quite a lot for public gallery seats at said trial.

MadsL

Wibbs wrote: »

I would suspect, though could be way wrong here, that the premiums would be based on the risks, the likelihood of being involved in legal action. So for someone like me, lovely law abiding crank that nobody listens to that I am, the premium would be low. However for a publisher like a newspaper, TV station or website like Boards, they would be far more exposed to cranks and ambulance chasers and would have much more risk of causing a legal issue in the first place. Massively so on a web forum through the users. The law goes after the publisher first.

Classic law is an ass scenario.

Maybe we need an internet strawman (in the legal sense) like the environment has Peter Sweetman, to go to bat to set some sensible case law in terms of internet libel and the liability of the publisher.

You could easily rip through a five figure sum in the courts defending yourself on a case, even one you're clearly gonna win. So those kinda media outlets premiums are gonna be a lot more than a couple of hundred quid a year. Like I say I could be way off with this, but I suspect not.

That said even the small guy can get roasted. I recall an Irish case a couple of years ago where a guy was sued and lost over a blog(100K IIRC), a blog I'd never heard of. So be careful what you say.

I'd be interested to hear the premium - libel cases whilst expensive, are uncommon.

One thing that interests me is the comments section on newspaper sites, inc Boards "sister" site Journal.ie. I've seen some real humdingers go unmolested that would have been nuked from orbit here. Maybe they're a subtly different legal area?

I can't help thinking that the way boards operates is more through cultural norm than guided by 'what will get us sued' - MCD debacle aside - however the wind appears to be changing.

<<< I have changed my avatar in anticipation...

Cody Pomeray

Wibbs wrote: »

One thing that interests me is the comments section on newspaper sites, inc Boards "sister" site Journal.ie. I've seen some real humdingers go unmolested that would have been nuked from orbit here. Maybe they're a subtly different legal area?

same legal principles apply to the journal comments as here.

A lot of the modding that gets done on boards is likely to fall well outside the ambit of the law, and is a matter for the norms, rules, and values of the site and its owners.

Similar rules apply to the journal but the journal's values obviously don't correspond exactly with those of boards.ie.

It might be the case that, taking this into account, journal users have a different attitude to personal conduct and are less likely to report posts than boards.ie users, and therefore distasteful comments just don't come to the journal administators' attention. If it doesn't come to their attention, it doesn't get actioned and the journal's liability as an intermediary is very likely to be diminished.

Beasty

I'm not sure the current insurers (or indeed owners) would appreciate Boards attempting to precipitate a test case on any legal point

In fact those in charge of things around here go out of their way (quite rightly in my view) to avoid getting involved in potentially costly legal actions. You also need to bear in mind the costs of losing a case usually include those incurred by the other side. Hence although it may be possible to keep a lid on costs incurred directly by Boards there is always a risk that additional and unexpected costs could land on the doormat...

padd b1975

I would think Boards would counter sue the poster if it came to the crunch.

It could reasonably claim that it is impossible for it's team of volunteer mods to monitor every individual post/poster.

clairefontaine

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

I've posted this before. But when this legislation comes in, how will this affect what goes on here?

IF you look at the whole thing and the consequential criminalisation of speech, what will the be left to talk about?

Oryx

To be honest, I think it makes much better sense to avoid the problem in the first place, rather than have a fund for when things go tits up. I have car insurance, but I still try to avoid crashing.

And the odd tenner here and there wont go far in the high court, particularly for defamation, where awards can be silly money, and scarily unpredictable.

P_1

Well the idea is to have it as a defensive fund rather than an offensive one. What I mean is that it could be a useful reserve to have should somebody decide to take on the site legally rather than the site taking on a case to prove any sort of point.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

I would suspect, though could be way wrong here, that the premiums would be based on the risks, the likelihood of being involved in legal action. So for someone like me, lovely law abiding crank that nobody listens to that I am, the premium would be low. However for a publisher like a newspaper, TV station or website like Boards, they would be far more exposed to cranks and ambulance chasers and would have much more risk of causing a legal issue in the first place. Massively so on a web forum through the users. The law goes after the publisher first. You could easily rip through a five figure sum in the courts defending yourself on a case, even one you're clearly gonna win. So those kinda media outlets premiums are gonna be a lot more than a couple of hundred quid a year. Like I say I could be way off with this, but I suspect not.

That said even the small guy can get roasted. I recall an Irish case a couple of years ago where a guy was sued and lost over a blog(100K IIRC), a blog I'd never heard of. So be careful what you say.

One thing that interests me is the comments section on newspaper sites, inc Boards "sister" site Journal.ie. I've seen some real humdingers go unmolested that would have been nuked from orbit here. Maybe they're a subtly different legal area?

So essentially with some of these laws, if I were looking to make a buck, I could just scream IM OFFENDED and sue and presto?

That hardly makes any kind of sense.

Who would actually sue? It makes no sense.

Nodin

P_1 wrote: »

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere better for it.

As we know, there is a sense of fear that a court case against the site could sink it (mainly through legal fees) and as a result the good folks in the office have to tread very softly when something (for example, the recent blasphemy hullabaloo) involving the lawyers props up.

I'm just wondering if a once off donation (say a tenner) from users a la the Santa Strike Force might be of benefit, with the raised money going into a legal 'kitty' of sorts? Is such a thing legal? Will it benefit the site and cause less headaches for the guys in the office or would it cause more harm than good?

I know myself that I'd gladly give to such a 'kitty' and I am reasonably certain that a good few others would feel the same. Good idea or bad idea?

.......I'd only contribute to one for very specific purposes.

Boards.ie: Nicola

clairefontaine wrote: »

So essentially with some of these laws, if I were looking to make a buck, I could just scream IM OFFENDED and sue and presto?

That hardly makes any kind of sense.

Who would actually sue? It makes no sense.

A lot of people on a frighteningly regular basis. We have to treat every single legal threat as having the potential to be very serious.

Benny_Cake

I don't think it should be forgotten that Boards is a for profit company, not a non-profit. I get a lot of use out of the site and I happily pay for a subscription, but I think it would be a little much to ask users to pay for potential legal expenses.

If anyone feels differently, it's your money, but I can think of far more deserving causes frankly.

clairefontaine

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

A lot of people on a frighteningly regular basis. We have to treat every single legal threat as having the potential to be very serious.

My question is that one can actually takeout a lawsuit and win in Ireland on the basis they are offended?

Sorry but that sounds so ridiculous it's hard to believe.

Over on AH on the closed thread, Dav says you have to oblige the law of the land and that is determined not by where the data comes from but where the page is rendered. What does that mean exactly?

Beasty

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't think it should be forgotten that Boards is a for profit company

There are probably one or two in the office right now saying "if only ..."

But it's certainly a commercial enterprise that would like to make a profit;)

Benny_Cake

Beasty wrote: »

There are probably one or two in the office right now saying "if only ..."

But it's certainly a commercial enterprise that would like to make a profit;)

Heh, I meant that was the intention anyway! I've no idea if it's a profitable enterprise or not.

Cody Pomeray

Blasphemy is one thing. Everyone agrees the blasphemy law is stupid. But does anyone really expect a prosecution?

Defamation is another thing. I'm entitled to my good name in the eyes of reasonable members of the society. We all have that as a right. Even businesses like boards.ie enjoy that right. So I don't agree with Dav's post in AH that the defamation law in Ireland is a joke (or words to that effect). No it isn't.

I'm sorry that boards has to watch how it responds to potentially defamatory content, but I'd rather it had that obligation than one of us were obliged to 'put up with' strangers spreading malicious lies about us online, or even bitter individuals from damaging legitimate, hard-working businesses (like boards.ie) from getting on with their affairs.

You can't expect a free ride as an online intermediary. It is fair and reasonable that boards has to respond to legal issues which arise on a platform from which it generates income.

I would feel very uncomfortable about contributing to a fund that sought to fight *any* random person trying to establish their good name against some internet poster. So while I'd hate to see boards sued, the idea of any such fund is mad.

Friend Computer

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Blasphemy is one thing. Everyone agrees the blasphemy law is stupid. But does anyone really expect a prosecution?

Is it unreasonable to expect Boards not to become the test case? And for the people in the office to take steps towards that?

Until the law is actually tested in court the answer to your question is: no one really knows.

Defamation is another thing. I'm entitled to my good name in the eyes of reasonable members of the society. We all have that as a right. Even businesses like boards.ie enjoy that right. So I don't agree with Dav's post in AH that the defamation law in Ireland is a joke (or words to that effect). No it isn't.

It's a joke because--as he said in the same post--accusations result in the presumption of innocence being reversed: you're guilty until you prove your innocence.

In that case yes, it is an absolute joke. The onus should always be on the plaintiff to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove their innocence.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Friend Computer wrote: »

Is it unreasonable to expect Boards not to become the test case? And for the people in the office to take steps towards that?

It is highly unreasonable to expect Boards to actually take steps to ensure that it is prosecuted in the Criminal Courts for a Criminal offence.
If you are that eager to fight the state as a defendant in a criminal trial why don't you personally take steps to get yourself arrested and tried for blasphemy.

Friend Computer

I think you might have misread my post as I was saying just that: Boards shouldn't be the test case, nor should people expect it to be.

Cody Pomeray

Friend Computer wrote: »

Is it unreasonable to expect Boards not to become the test case? And for the people in the office to take steps towards that?

Yes. In 800 years of Irish legal history, including the middle ages, there were 3 blasphemy cases.

Even at the height of the Catholic church's power in the 20th century, there was not one single prosecution for blasphemy.

Unlike many other crimes, only the DPP can commence a prosecution for blasphemy. A common informer cannot.

We should not be flippant about the 2009 act, but it is unreasonable to "expect" that there will be a test case, and that boards.ie will be it.

Defamation is the real issue here, and I don't understand why anyone would give such action a blanket guarantee of opposition.

MugMugs

P_1 wrote: »

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere better for it.

As we know, there is a sense of fear that a court case against the site could sink it (mainly through legal fees) and as a result the good folks in the office have to tread very softly when something (for example, the recent blasphemy hullabaloo) involving the lawyers props up.

I'm just wondering if a once off donation (say a tenner) from users a la the Santa Strike Force might be of benefit, with the raised money going into a legal 'kitty' of sorts? Is such a thing legal? Will it benefit the site and cause less headaches for the guys in the office or would it cause more harm than good?

I know myself that I'd gladly give to such a 'kitty' and I am reasonably certain that a good few others would feel the same. Good idea or bad idea?

One would "assume" that Distilled Media have their house in order and have "legal protection cover" which (given that they abide by the terms of their policy conditions) would provide them with cover for any suit and or subsequent fine.

If you really really really want to help Boards.ie then I would highly suggest that you click here. It may not be a specific "kitty" but it would help them pay the bills

danniemcq

This might be an interesting read for some people

http://breakingnews.ie/world/court-rules-that-websites-are-responsible-for-users-comments-609698.html

However the court said the individual users who posted the comments could also be sued - as long as it was possible to identify them.

published yesterday

Wibbs

as long as it was possible to identify them.

Which it nearly always is. In the end though the legal eagles looking for payouts will hit the one with the most potential cash, so that's gonna be the publisher in most cases.

Dades

Wibbs wrote: »

as long as it was possible to identify them.

Which it nearly always is.

It often is, depending on how long they've been around (and how much information they've let slip), and the email address they signed up with.

But good luck getting chunkylover42@hotmail.com to answer a summons if that's the only point of contact they have.

Wibbs

Thanks D, now every email spambot has me by the goolies.

coffee_cake

MadsL wrote: »

Is this not the type of thing that companies take out insurance against? I'd hope boards.ie has insurance as an employer, that should cover getting sued.

I just bought a $2m umbrella coverage for $300 a year, which includes motor liabilility, libel and slander. It's not expensive generally.

I thought for a split sec you got insurance on your umbrella >>