The web has created a new medium for people to speak and trade information. One needs only look at the current state of newspapers to know how big of an impact this development has been. That being said, many people are not aware there can be legal ramifications regarding what they say when posting in forums. Yep, you could get sued.
Forums and boards are a place of free flowing ideas. This is particularly true since people can post using anonymous titles and avatars. Once anonymity is believed to be achieved, any common sense prohibition against saying inflammatory things seems to go by the wayside. This is a mistake. There is little or not anonymity on the web if someone or a company wants to find your true identity. Let's take a look at a common situation.
A debate is taking place on a forum about the merits of some product from Company X. You don't own the product nor have you ever tried it. You have, however, owned another product from the company. It was cheap and didn't perform as you expected. As a result, you post on the board this new product is a piece of junk and of low quality. You pop offline and think nothing else of it.
Two months later you get a notice in the mail. It is from the company with the forum. Company X has sued and the court has ordered the forum to turn over your profile information and your IP address. You have 10 days to appear in court to object or the forum will have to comply. Now you have a big problem.
Posting in a forum does not relieve from the threat of liability. For better or worse, you can still be sued for anything from character assassination to invasion of privacy to...well, anything that you can be sued for in the brick and mortar world. Laws in the physical world apply to the virtual world as well.
Ah, but what about anonymity? Well, you leave a trail when you post online. Many people assume that they will be okay as long as they don't put their true name, address and whatever on the forum profile. Wrong. A company will sue the forum for your IP information. It is recorded when you sign up. They will then track backwards to the company controlling said IP and get a court order forcing the company to reveal who has the account.
You are probably thinking this is a lot of work to just find someone who posted something on a board. You're right. However, many companies now take reputation management seriously. They have lawyers on staff whose sole job is to do this. Whether they bring 5 or 50 actions makes no major difference from a cost perspective. More and more companies will be taking this step as well in the future as they try to protect their reputation.
So, should you not post in forums? Of course not. You need to simply be careful. Truth is a defense to any defamation claim. If you wouldn't say it in public, don't say it on a forum.
You should never name a person on a website.
You should never lie about someone on a forum, this is libel and can lead to prosecution.
I say, if there's anything that I could possibly say on a forum that a company is so endangered by that they would attempt to sue me................ Good luck, ya can't get blood from a turnip. My freedom of speech will kick your ass, have fun wastin your money on court costs/orders.
Do you know of any situations in which this has happened?
I say, if there's anything that I could possibly say on a forum that a company is so endangered by that they would attempt to sue me................ Good luck, ya can't get blood from a turnip. My freedom of speech will kick your ass, have fun wastin your money on court costs/orders.
Do you know of any situations in which this has happened?
It'd be damn'd bad publicity for the company if they tried.
Bill Sikes;1231194 wrote: There were a lot of posts which I was going to look at - I echo the guapo's question. Where are they now? On the Jerry Springer thread.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Mustang;1231198 wrote: Yeah, the posts that followed in this thread that went way off topic were bloody silly and belonged in the game show.
Did you move them, then?
If some pocket despot takes it into their head to sort out threads that go off-topic, a) they'll have some flippin' work to do, and b) other posters will have to waste no end of their own time finding the moved posts.
Bill Sikes;1231202 wrote: Did you move them, then?
If some pocket despot takes it into their head to sort out threads that go off-topic, a) they'll have some flippin' work to do, and b) other posters will have to waste no end of their own time finding the moved posts.
It's not on.
Sure I moved them...was better than deleting up teen posts that had nothing to do with this thread topic. Wasn't hard work at all to move them. And I don't think posters are having any problems finding the posts since they are enjoying posting in The Jerry Springer Show thread now.
Now, can we get this thread "back on topic" please?
Mustang;1231203 wrote: Sure I moved them...was better than deleting up teen posts that had nothing to do with this thread topic.
What you view as "teen posts" may not be what contributers, the bread and butter of Mr. Tombstone's venture, ForumGarden, view in the same light.
It is my very considered opinion that mangling people's contributions on your own whim, but for no generally good reason (cf. many other threads that have drifted), is counter-productive.
Having reported your immediately previous contribution as offensive, I hope that it will spark some debate, if only "internally", about your behaviour.
lou lou belle;1231069 wrote: The web has created a new medium for people to speak and trade information. One needs only look at the current state of newspapers to know how big of an impact this development has been. That being said, many people are not aware there can be legal ramifications regarding what they say when posting in forums. Yep, you could get sued.
Forums and boards are a place of free flowing ideas. This is particularly true since people can post using anonymous titles and avatars. Once anonymity is believed to be achieved, any common sense prohibition against saying inflammatory things seems to go by the wayside. This is a mistake. There is little or not anonymity on the web if someone or a company wants to find your true identity. Let's take a look at a common situation.
A debate is taking place on a forum about the merits of some product from Company X. You don't own the product nor have you ever tried it. You have, however, owned another product from the company. It was cheap and didn't perform as you expected. As a result, you post on the board this new product is a piece of junk and of low quality. You pop offline and think nothing else of it.
Two months later you get a notice in the mail. It is from the company with the forum. Company X has sued and the court has ordered the forum to turn over your profile information and your IP address. You have 10 days to appear in court to object or the forum will have to comply. Now you have a big problem.
Posting in a forum does not relieve from the threat of liability. For better or worse, you can still be sued for anything from character assassination to invasion of privacy to...well, anything that you can be sued for in the brick and mortar world. Laws in the physical world apply to the virtual world as well.
Ah, but what about anonymity? Well, you leave a trail when you post online. Many people assume that they will be okay as long as they don't put their true name, address and whatever on the forum profile. Wrong. A company will sue the forum for your IP information. It is recorded when you sign up. They will then track backwards to the company controlling said IP and get a court order forcing the company to reveal who has the account.
You are probably thinking this is a lot of work to just find someone who posted something on a board. You're right. However, many companies now take reputation management seriously. They have lawyers on staff whose sole job is to do this. Whether they bring 5 or 50 actions makes no major difference from a cost perspective. More and more companies will be taking this step as well in the future as they try to protect their reputation.
So, should you not post in forums? Of course not. You need to simply be careful. Truth is a defense to any defamation claim. If you wouldn't say it in public, don't say it on a forum.
You should never name a person on a website.
You should never lie about someone on a forum, this is libel and can lead to prosecution.
Interesting topic. If I find time, I am going to have to see if I can find any cases where this has happened.
So, should you not post in forums? Of course not. You need to simply be careful. Truth is a defense to any defamation claim. If you wouldn't say it in public, don't say it on a forum.
You should never name a person on a website.
You should never lie about someone on a forum, this is libel and can lead to prosecution.
Not this little black duck. there's lots I say on forums that I wouldn't say in the real world.
I've had people lie about me on forums ....good god I didn't sue them.
That being said, many people are not aware there can be legal ramifications regarding what they say when posting in forums. Yep, you could get sued.
hOly crap I hope what I've said is brought up in court. It'll help to jog my memory of events. They'd be doing me a favour.
Mustang;1231203 wrote: Sure I moved them...was better than deleting up teen posts that had nothing to do with this thread topic. Wasn't hard work at all to move them. And I don't think posters are having any problems finding the posts since they are enjoying posting in The Jerry Springer Show thread now.
Now, can we get this thread "back on topic" please?
Thank you Mustang
I have found an example of a victim of forum harrassment and libel
Forum Libel, an example
Over the last several months....this victim has been the victim of several postings on a local website that are designed to ridicule and place her in an unkind light within a small rural community that she lived in.
Without explaining all of the details of this harassment and possible libel....
Several months back, she found her entire first and last name used as a thread header and several pages of most rediculing her religious or political beliefs.
She was banned from this website for supposed TOS violation but in reality..it is her belief that this decidedly liberal website actually does not care for her conservative beliefs. Now that is their right to feel that way but...
Can they routinely place her real name on their website and use it as a forum to redicule her, her family or other volunteer organizations she belongs to?
The procedure....Is to post the information, allow it to remain for an unspecified amount of time and then remove it and claim no fowl because the information is ultimately removed.
She said that she is not the only individual who has been the victim of this.
She has printed the original threads and those pertaining to others also.
She also live in a small community in which she relied on her integrity to do business.
This website is a highly viewed website in my community.
She was fearful of bringing a possible suit as it will result in dialogue on this website in which I cannot participate or challenge in any way.
The local Sheriffs Department is hestitant to bring criminal charges without a slam dunk case as they will find themselves in the same postition on this website.
A local deputy was libeled personally several month ago and could only watch.
The possible outcome
Libel provides for civil remedies. The easiest route is to write a certified letter, along with some proof, that this web site has been warned about libelous posts and continues to perpetuate them. In the event that this is allowed to continue this victim will be forced to use her legal rights to protect herself. Frequently this is the easiest method of shutting this kind of activity down as soon as possible. Later she would be able decide whether you want to continue to pursue remedy in court.
This is becoming more of a problem and i dont think it will be long before more and more cases are brought to the courts. You can be sued for such behaviour on a forum.
I think the word 'Sheriff' tells you that it is an example of US law and very different to British law.
You will also find that if any tabloid newspaper article naming a person is linked to a thread, the onus is with the newspaper. Members of a forum are legally entitled to link any newspaper article naming who-ever they like and for posters to add their comments and version of events. There are thousands of forums out there with millions of links from tabloid newspapers.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
“In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that— (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.”
When the owner of a website hosting user-generated content is accused of publishing a libel contained in such content, Section 1 is usually the first point of call.
Authors, editors and publishers
The first point to check is whether the defendant or potential defendant is an author, editor or publisher.
These terms are given a special meaning in Section 1(2):
• “author” means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all;
• “editor” means a person having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it; and
• “publisher” means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.
Notwithstanding these definitions, there are some categories of person who will never be considered an author, editor or publisher. Of particular interest to website owners are Sections 1(3)(c) and (1)(3)(e) of the Act:
“A person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved— … (c) in processing, making copies of, distributing or selling any electronic medium in or on which the statement is recorded, or in operating or providing any equipment, system or service by means of which the statement is retrieved, copied, distributed or made available in electronic form; … (e) as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control.”
In a case not within paragraphs (a) to (e) the court may have regard to those provisions by way of analogy in deciding whether a person is to be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement.”
Reasonable care and knowledge/belief
In addition to not being an author, editor or publisher, a person wishing to rely upon the Section 1 defence must show that he or she (or it) took reasonable care in relation to the publication, and did not did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he or she (or it) did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.
In this connection, Section 1(5) provides:
“In determining for the purposes of this section whether a person took reasonable care, or had reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement, regard shall be had to— (a) the extent of his responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it, (b) the nature or circumstances of the publication, and (c) the previous conduct or character of the author, editor or publisher.”
Analysis
Section 1 leaves web publishers in an dilemma. They must show they took reasonable care in relation to a publication. However, in some circumstances reasonable care may require prior review: and prior review may lead to the web publisher being considered to be an “editor” and therefore not entitled to take advantage of the defence.
In circumstances where reasonable care does not require prior review etc of user content (assuming there are such circumstances!) a defendant should have a better chance of being able to rely upon this defence in relation to user-generated content if:
• the defendant does not engage in prior review, or prior editing, of the user generated content;
• the website expressly disclaims responsibility for the content on the part of the defendant;
• the website includes a procedure whereby defamatory material can be notified to the defendant ex post facto for deletion where appropriate;
• as the defendant becomes aware of potentially defamatory content, that content is quickly removed.
Dealing with website content theft
International transfers of personal data »
Dealing with defamatory posts on your website forum or blog
One of the many legal risks facing you as a web publisher comes from the law of libel: as publisher, you may be liable not only for your own writings, but also for the defamatory comments that users make on your website.
Identifying defamatory posts
How can you identify whether a particular post is defamatory or not? Over the years the courts have put forward a lot of different tests. A defamatory publication has been defined as:
a publication “lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking people generally” (Sim v Stretch);
“a publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.” (Cropp v. Tilney);
a publication tending to make a person be “shunned and avoided” (Youssoupoff v. MGM Pictures).
A wide range of publications may be defamatory – for example, allegations that a person is a thief or a liar, an idiot or fool, corrupt, immoral, an adulterer, carrying a disease, bankrupt or unable to pay his or her debts.
So, any comment on your website that may have a negative effect on a person’s reputation (other than a trivial effect) could be problematic.
Standard defences
Of course, there are range of defences which may be available to web publishers in respect of third party defamatory comments.
Probably the most important defence is justification (aka truth). If a defendant can prove that a publication is true, then the defendant will have a complete defence to a libel action. However, it can be difficult, not to mention expensive, to prove the truth of an allegation. As a web publisher, then, you should be wary of relying upon a justification defence.
The defence of “fair comment” is closely related to justification. This defence may be available where the offending statement is a statement of comment rather than fact, is based upon facts which can be proven to be true, and is made in good faith, without malice, on a matter of public interest. Again, a web publisher will often be in a poor position to assess the applicability of a fair comment defence in relation to a statement made by a website user.
In addition there is a special public interest defence (sometimes called Reynolds-style privilege) which could in principle be applicable. However, the scope of this defence is uncertain, and it is not entirely clear how it may apply to website forum or blog comments.
In summary, a web publisher should only rely upon one of the standard defences to a libel action where the applicability of the defence is clear (e.g. in the case of an allegation of criminal behaviour, a conviction has been obtained).
Special defences
As well as the standard libel defences, there are special defences under the Ecommerce Directive and the Defamation Act 1996 which may protect web publishers. I will focus here upon the latter defence.
Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 1996 provides that “In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement”.
This defence should protect a web publisher from defamatory user comments providing the publisher has taken “reasonable care” and has no involvement with or knowledge of the statement.
“Reasonable care” may include having terms of use for the forum/comments section of the site which prohibit defamatory posts.
In any event, you should act promptly to remove defamatory posts when you become aware of them.
Risk assessment
Of course, some user comments are more risky than others. E.g. a statement on your widely-read political blog that an litigious MP has takes bribes is more risky, by far, than a statement on a blog read only by your friends that your ex is ugly.
The internet would be a smaller place, in more ways than one, if all formally defamatory material was suddenly deleted.
As just an example off the top of my head......... let's say a person joined a forum knowing a member of their community had been posting there for some time and posted a thread as a deliberate troll to tell the board they were for example a criminal, then they would indeed be in serious trouble. Especially if it were taken as a deliberate act to make the charge sound more damaging than the truth.
I'm just guessing here but I think in this example, a good lawyer would wipe the floor with your arsse especially if no link was added to the thread or posts to back up the exaggeration of the statement they had written.
Then that's just an example and I'm sure there are many more.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I think you,ll find that everything that has been placed on this website by certain members is full of malice and an attempt has been made to try and descredit a certain person that has been named. They are in the wrong, especially as its all lies!
I am glad that I have been able to write to people on this forum and put a valid point accross. This is indeed a very interesting thread and i am sure there will be more replies by the end of the day.
lou lou belle;1231471 wrote: Good lawyer, do you know one?:yh_rotfl
I think you,ll find that everything that has been placed on this website by certain members is full of malice and an attempt has been made to try and descredit a certain person that has been named. They are in the wrong, especially as its all lies!
I am glad that I have been able to write to people on this forum and put a valid point accross. This is indeed a very interesting thread and i am sure there will be more replies by the end of the day.
Barman;1231475 wrote: Is there some hidden agenda here?
It is my understanding, from previous posts that have been published here, that an existing member who had some past difficulty in real life was "followed" here by someone involved in that difficulty. Unless they've been edited or deleted, posts still exist here indicating the difficulty and involvement of the respective parties. If the posts have been edited or deleted, it is highly likely that they are still available elsewhere on the 'net.
Bill Sikes;1231480 wrote: It is my understanding, from previous posts that have been published here, that an existing member who had some past difficulty in real life was "followed" here by someone involved in that difficulty. Unless they've been edited or deleted, posts still exist here indicating the difficulty and involvement of the respective parties. If the posts have been edited or deleted, it is highly likely that they are still available elsewhere on the 'net.
Bill Sikes;1231480 wrote: It is my understanding, from previous posts that have been published here, that an existing member who had some past difficulty in real life was "followed" here by someone involved in that difficulty. Unless they've been edited or deleted, posts still exist here indicating the difficulty and involvement of the respective parties. If the posts have been edited or deleted, it is highly likely that they are still available elsewhere on the 'net.
Bill The only difficulty i have is reading post that are libellous and inflamatory.
All previous posts have been kept as a record of this unjust treatment using the vehicle of a forum website to discredit a person in their profession.
Its immoral and I ask anyone who was party to any comments made in repsonse to this....please think twice before becoming involved in something that clearly has been misreported on this website. Its damaging and can lead to all kinds of issues.
I also wonder how you would feel if things were written about you that were clearly libellous. Reading your comments it is clear that you are an intelligent man, then surely you understand that every story has two sides. And it was only a matter of time that this had to be addressed.
I joined this forum website as did other members to talk about certain areas that I felt needed to be discussed. I have not named another person on this website.
I joined as did other members wanting to discuss certain issues that had been misreported. What is wrong with that?
Kathy Ellen;1231497 wrote: It would have been so much better Lou Lou if you came in honestly and discussed your concerns about another member here.
Instead you and friends came to FG with full guns loaded...not to discuss but to flame.
I totally agree Kathy, but it did come as quite a shock to read such awful things about this person. It would be very fool hardy that this that story is discussed at great length. Especially when you can be accountable for everything.
Myself and my supporting members have managed to balance out the facts.
That is what i like about living in a country that freedom of speech is paramount.
But what i dont like is when freedom of speech involves slander and libelous accusations.
Bill Sikes;1231516 wrote: I don't know what you are talking about. You will have to explain. You do need to "go over the story again", because I haven't heard it from you.
Myself and other members have been told that we cannot talk about a certain story that has been published on here. Sorry
lou lou belle;1231517 wrote: Myself and other members have been told that we cannot talk about a certain story that has been published on here. Sorry : lips:
Who by?
If it's been "published on here", then where is it?
If you "cannot talk about it", then what are you doing now?
To me this smacks of avoiding the issue, whilst maintaining a stance. It's rather disagreeable, if so. If it's not, then answer.
Hugh Janus;1231515 wrote: I should have put my wellies on. The bullsh1t is starting to get pretty deep in here.
Could you clarify on this Hugh. I think you,ll find that i have posted a very valid article and something that warrants discussion, and not the use pf profanity and smilies in an attempt to belittle the thread starter.
Lets have your thoughts on what you have contributed to the forum. Do you think its acceptable to publish liblelous and defamatory words on here?
If you do, then you need to look at the legality side of things.
Barman;1231521 wrote: Then what was the purpose of starting this thread in the first place.:rolleyes:
The purpose of starting this thread was to discuss the ramifications of using a forum website to mislead members and try to discredit a person that was unaware of the things that had been said about her. Surely a very sly tactic, do you not think?
lou lou belle;1231531 wrote: The purpose of starting this thread was to discuss the ramifications of using a forum website to mislead members and try to discredit a person that was unaware of the things that had been said about her. Surely a very sly tactic, do you not think?
Barman;1231535 wrote: Ah so that is what you are trying to do. She is correct that some members were warned not to mention a subject again there-fore maybe the thread is to bait those warned into responding and getting a ban.
Just a theory I'm tossing around here mate.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
oscar;1231540 wrote: So what your actually doing is admitting to answering to threads that you were told not to? hmmmmmmm
That was previously and lo and behold someone got panicky and decided to PM everyone they could muster to try and stop the correct version of events from being told. mmmmmmmm I wonder why that happened? Was it because maybe that person would be discredited, after all anyone can re-invent themselves on a forum website.
lou lou belle;1231546 wrote: That was previously and lo and behold someone got panicky and decided to PM everyone they could muster to try and stop the correct version of events from being told. mmmmmmmm I wonder why that happened? Was it because maybe that person would be discredited, after all anyone can re-invent themselves on a forum website.
Nomad;1231552 wrote: Enough. It's cool Nomie. Everyone who has ever registered on this forum has spent a lot of time talking to poeple about all subjects. It's how we all get to truely know a person on this forum. You can't make folk like you. You can only post on all manner of topics until folk get to knopw the real you........ that's how FG friends are made.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.
For example, say you wrote an email to the top 200 managers and governors of the BBC about Mr Dyke never paying his licence. That email is leaked to Magazine X who print it without making sure it is true.
Although the mail's already been sent and read by all, by repeating the allegation they too are committing the same libel. 'Repetition is no defence' say lawyers. Because it isn't.
Lets see how many friends want to be party to this and will admit to recieving emails and literature that is libelous.
qsducks;1231573 wrote: I'm suing all of you...for disorderly conduct and some other stuff that I'll make up:wah:
I will sue you like no one has been sued before. Ill sue you right into the bowels of hell itself. When I get done with you you will be spraying car windows at stop lights and begging for change.
Im going to get started on that right now.
Well, I have to go to work first and then Im probably going to relax and watch a movie but soon. Pretty soon.
