A user generated legal 'kitty' for Boards?

dr.bollocko

Here's a judge kitty if that helps.

clairefontaine

Dades wrote: »

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.

What court outside of Saudi Arabia would take that seriously?

Dades

clairefontaine wrote: »

What court outside of Saudi Arabia would take that seriously?

Uh, what? Not sure if serious... but the point is you can't sue a poster if you can't identify who a poster is in real life.

Steve

I came to this thread expecting some new cool meme involving cat picz and boards.

/dissapointed.

Cody Pomeray

danniemcq wrote: »

This might be an interesting read for some people

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



published yesterday

Boards should not be overly concerned about that decision

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057058115

Annasopra

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?

I've noticed in the last 6 months or so that they have massively stepped up moderation over there.

Annasopra

Whats the point of this suggestion though? Is it so that moderation can be relaxed and that more posts containing potential libel/defamation/hate speech can be published?

Wibbs

MS I think the problem highlighted recently is not the clearly(and already) defined and circumscribed hate speech, it's the confusion about what may constitute it. One persons reasoned debate is another's hate speech.

This is doubly so when we get to religion and the notion of blasphemy. One man's central tenet of faith is another man's blasphemy. Because of the stupid and untested blasphemy law all it takes is a couple of people who don't like what they read/see to cause a potential legal issue for Boards in quite the number of forums/threads on the site. I'm not talking about the rabid right wing stuff that should be excised either. That's already out of bounds.

On say defamation; OK imagine MS if you read an article somewhere else and thought it utterly crap, even vile and that the author was promoting hate and posted that on a thread. You might well be right, but could said author who reads that cause issues for the Boards office? I dunno, maybe they could, maybe they couldn't, but as the office has already pointed out that rarely a week goes by without some legal challenge or other(the vast majority of which appear to be complete ballsology), I'd not be surprised. As Nicola pointed out on this thread "We have to treat every single legal threat as having the potential to be very serious". That's completely understandable.

The problem comes with defending such claims. Even if the claims are so ridiculous that they warrant nothing but laughter, defending them costs money and big money at that. If in an ideal world Boards had a dirty great financial war chest to counter such legal timesinks then it would be better for all concerned. As I say, that's ideal world time and sadly we're not living in that. So far this hasn't affected the communities ability to have reasoned debate, but I think the worry is that it might down the line. If all it takes is an email pointing out that the community could be open to a legal threat that is a worry.

clairefontaine

Wibbs,

You can't just sue aomeone because you don't like an article.

You have to prove that it was factually wrong and caused personal damages, as in you lost business.

It's not like you can say "oh What a crap post. Let me sue."

And an email? An email means nothing. If you can't even verify the indentifty or source of an email, ow could. It count?

P_1

mango salsa wrote: »

Whats the point of this suggestion though? Is it so that moderation can be relaxed and that more posts containing potential libel/defamation/hate speech can be published?

No to be honest it was more thinking out loud to try to protect the site as a whole from somebody deciding to sue it on a whim if they disagree with posts on it. Defamation is a separate issue, if somebody is having their good name run through the dirt here then of course they should have the ability to make every legal attempt to defend it

johnnyskeleton

MadsL wrote: »

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.

The law wouldn't get repealed in a criminal prosecution, it would require a constitutional challenge. Plus, companies do not necessarily have the same constitutional rights as a human.

So getting boards prosecuted for blasphemy is a very bad idea.

clairefontaine

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The law wouldn't get repealed in a criminal prosecution, it would require a constitutional challenge. Plus, companies do not necessarily have the same constitutional rights as a human.

So getting boards prosecuted for blasphemy is a very bad idea.

If Ireland prosecuted boards for blasphemy, Ireland would be the laughing stock of the Western world, actually the whole world, bar Saudi.

Cody Pomeray

Wibbs wrote: »

Even if the claims are so ridiculous that they warrant nothing but laughter, defending them costs money and big money at that. If in an ideal world Boards had a dirty great financial war chest to counter such legal timesinks then it would be better for all concerned.

But what if the claims weren't so ridiculous except to warrant laughter?

This website is a business. Why would you want to give any business involved in the publication of material an arsenal of money so that it could defend itself against defamation cases, some of which might be entirely meritorious?

Imagine it were you that were defamed, with claims that you were a sex offender. How would you feel about some website having been given a stock of money to equip it with enough possible bravado to allow such accusations to be published on its servers?

Because that's what's being discussed here - giving an intermediary enough of a financial buffer as to bolster its courage regarding what it allows to be published. That just sounds like an awful idea, grossly unfair to someone who might be genuinely hurt by online content.

And for what it's worth, I'm sure the directors of the company are not interested. I don't think they see themselves as crusaders of law reform.

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Because that's what's being discussed here - giving an intermediary enough of a financial buffer as to bolster its courage regarding what it allows to be published. That just sounds like an awful idea, grossly unfair to someone who might be genuinely hurt by online content.

This is is really. A war chest of any substance would then lead to Boards becoming lax in it's editorial and and moderation duties, standards would slip because the security of being able to fund a bigger challenge than the other guy would lead to Boards becoming complacent. There would also be all sorts of legal and financial implications because Boards is itself a limited company, and it would only take one challenge to clean out the war chest.

And for what it's worth, I'm sure the directors of the company are not interested. I don't think they see themselves as crusaders of law reform.

Exactly. Boards is more concerned with getting people to subscribe, rather than contribute to some community kitty that might never be used. The money would indeed be "just resting in an account" somewhere.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Very interesting article on this in todays Irish times
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/can-defamation-law-keep-pace-with-technological-change-1.1602524?page=1

A couple of points from both UK and EU court judgements stand out;
Last year in the case of Tamiz v Google the High Court in London found Google was not the publisher of defamatory material posted by someone using its blog facility, the judge suggesting you could not hold the owner of a wall responsible for graffiti sprayed on it by someone else.
The Court of Appeal has overturned that decision, however, and likened Google to the owner of a notice board who, once aware that a defamatory notice has been pinned up, must either remove it or be liable for it. (I bolded the last part for emphasis).
And
More recently in Delfi v Estonia the European Court of Human Rights went further, and said a news website should be able to predict which articles might generate offensive or libellous comments, and be prepared to act in advance. This would seem to stretch the obligations of news site owners beyond the practical and, although not directly applicable here, the case may set a tone for future decisions.(again I bolded for emphasis)

Just posting in the hope that posters might find it both interesting and help understand why Boards sometimes has to err on the side of caution.

seamus

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

The Court of Appeal has overturned that decision, however, and likened Google to the owner of a notice board who, once aware that a defamatory notice has been pinned up, must either remove it or be liable for it. (I bolded the last part for emphasis).

That's keeping in line with the betfair ruling so. The more times this is enshrined in case law, the better.

More recently in Delfi v Estonia the European Court of Human Rights went further, and said a news website should be able to predict which articles might generate offensive or libellous comments, and be prepared to act in advance. This would seem to stretch the obligations of news site owners beyond the practical and, although not directly applicable here, the case may set a tone for future decisions.(again I bolded for emphasis)

That's interesting alright. I don't think it would apply here because boards doesn't get to choose which "articles" are posted before time. I know plenty of news sites already do this, and disable commenting for controversial articles or ones about an upcoming court case, ones about someone's death, etc.