jeremy beadles hand
New member
When we use ficticious names?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Is Libel Possible On an Internet Chat Room?
- Thread starter jeremy beadles hand
- Start date
dougdeep
New member
How could they prove who sent it? anyone could have used the senders computer.
its not
dougdeep said:
It is the publisher that could be brought to task.
That would probably be me.
jeremy beadles hand
New member
- Thread starter
- #6
Bozza said:
Bozza maybe you need to put in a disclaimer or something to cover your arse?
dougdeep
New member
The opinions on this board are not those of the publisher!
I'm not sure such disclaimers are worth anything at all legally.
jeremy beadles hand
New member
- Thread starter
- #9
You and the Mods do a great job in keeping this board safe and well moderated. If someone doesn't like something they can report it straight away to a mod.
I'm sure that you couldn't be expected to do anything more than that.
I'm sure that you couldn't be expected to do anything more than that.
Stupid storm in a teacup about someone who seemed to protest so much it could make one think there was something in it.
How many times has the likes of Watford O been called a kiddy fiddler and other things similar by several regulars on here. I don't recall him ever threatening legal action.
Time to move on really
How many times has the likes of Watford O been called a kiddy fiddler and other things similar by several regulars on here. I don't recall him ever threatening legal action.
Time to move on really
From media-solicitors.co.uk
"The same rules apply for the internet as most other areas of the press. If the words published on-line are defamatory, the author and publisher can be sued. They can then use the defence of justification, fair comment, privilege.
What is different though is the recognition that ISPs do not fall into the traditional categories of author or publisher. They can defend a claim for libel if:
· It was not the author, editor or publisher;
· If reasonable care was taken;
· The ISP had no reason to believe that it caused the publication of the defamatory statement.
An ISP may fall foul of the law if it knows about the defamatory statements but does not react fast enough to remove them."
I think that Bozza is in the clear, although no one wants it to go to a test case.
If someone thinks that something defamatory has been said, there is a procedure to report it, and the mods will remove the comment.
Are there any NSC members in the law profession or with a law degreee who could help clear the murky waters?
"The same rules apply for the internet as most other areas of the press. If the words published on-line are defamatory, the author and publisher can be sued. They can then use the defence of justification, fair comment, privilege.
What is different though is the recognition that ISPs do not fall into the traditional categories of author or publisher. They can defend a claim for libel if:
· It was not the author, editor or publisher;
· If reasonable care was taken;
· The ISP had no reason to believe that it caused the publication of the defamatory statement.
An ISP may fall foul of the law if it knows about the defamatory statements but does not react fast enough to remove them."
I think that Bozza is in the clear, although no one wants it to go to a test case.
If someone thinks that something defamatory has been said, there is a procedure to report it, and the mods will remove the comment.
Are there any NSC members in the law profession or with a law degreee who could help clear the murky waters?
A disclaimer should only be used to cover the back of the administrator, everyone should be accountable for their own actions. If they meant to little, why do so many large companies use them?
Perhaps Bozza could do something along the lines of "the views expressed on this messageboard are not necessarily those of the board administrators and therefore should be regarded as personal opinion" or something along those lines and perhaps put into the terms and conditions of joining.
Perhaps Bozza could do something along the lines of "the views expressed on this messageboard are not necessarily those of the board administrators and therefore should be regarded as personal opinion" or something along those lines and perhaps put into the terms and conditions of joining.
Last edited:
Albion Dan
Banned
I agree with the sentiment that the person made such a fuss it could be deemed to make it look mre suspicious than it was ever meant!
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.
All three elements of the defence must be proved by the defendant.
I think the ISP is more likely to be deemed to be the publisher than anyone else.
(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.
All three elements of the defence must be proved by the defendant.
I think the ISP is more likely to be deemed to be the publisher than anyone else.
Internet defamation law is complicated by the tricky question of sysop liability. In defamation law for print and broadcast media, liability is sometimes considered to extend beyond the defamer himself (for instance, the writer of a libelous newspaper column) to the "publisher" of the material (in the previous example, the newspaper running the column). The idea of holding publishers responsible for libelous material in traditional media has been thoroughly tested and defined in court; there are clear precedents for determining who is liable for defamatory statements in these media. On the Internet, however, such issues are considerably more nebulous.
Defining the Sysop
A sysop, or system operator, is defined as a person or organization who in some way manages the publication/distribution of material on-line. The most common example is the operator of a bulletin board where users are permitted to post messages which can then be read by other users. Such bulletin boards may be exclusive to a limited group of subscribers, or they may be accessible to anyone on the Internet. The exact role of the sysop can range from merely providing technical support for the posting and reading of messages to carefully reading and editing all published submissions. It is this disparity in the functions of individual sysops that leads to questions about the extent of a sysop's liability in individual cases.
One view of a sysop is as a common carrier, much the way telephone companies are legally viewed. Just as telephone companies attempt no control over what information is communicated across their wires, and are not held legally liable for the content of such communication, this view of a sysop indicates that the sysop provides a forum for any message the user wishes to communicate and is therefore not liable for the content of such a message. For such a definition to apply, the sysop would have to take no editorial or censorial control whatsoever over any postings; only then can he be considered a common carrier. An example of this might be the host of a live-chat room who in no way limits access to this chat room or monitors the conversations which take place therein.
The opposite role from a common carrier is what is called a publisher; in the case of print media, this is the company that actually prints the newspapers containing defamatory material. A publisher is held legally liable for the information it prints because it exercises full editorial control over that information; it is therefore assumed to be in a position to monitor its content for defamatory material. Many sysops are deemed to fit this role much more closely than that of distributor or common carrier, as past court decisions on sysop liability have shown. In Stratton vs. Prodigy (see Precedent section), a judge noted that Prodigy did exercise control over its content and could therefore be held responsible for that content. This definition of Prodigy as a publisher was later changed, but some sysops are still considered publishers under the law. A more definitive example would be a newsgroup moderator who reads and edits all material before any is posted; this moderator then clearly takes an active role in the dissemination of defamatory information.
A third category, between common carrier and publisher, is the category of distributor. Again, an analogy to print media is useful; the distributor in this case would be the newsstand which may sell a newspaper containing defamatory content. The newsstand is not assumed to be aware of the content of all the publications it sells and is therefore not held responsible for that content. However, in some situations, the newsstand may in fact be aware of defamatory content; in this instance, it can then be held liable for continuing to distribute this content. In general, a distributor is seen as taking only a passive role in possible defamation and is therefore not liable; only when some deliberate transgression (such as failing to remove material it knows to be defamatory) can be proven is the distributor liable. This category, sitting in the middle ground between two extremes, is the most difficult to define and deal with, but it seems to be the appropriate designation for many sysops, who will in general not attempt to monitor content but may take action to remove exceptionable content if it is brought to their attention. In Cubby vs. CompuServe (see Precedent section), CompuServe was deemed a distributor and therefore not held liable for defamatory material of which it could not be expected to have knowledge. However, the categorization also implies that if CompuServe had been made aware of this material, it would have been obligated to remove it.
Problems of Applying Traditional Definitions
Although these definitions can be and have been applied to sysops in Internet defamation cases, some problems do arise with such categorization. For instance, when Prodigy was deemed in court to be a publisher, many were concerned that penalizing a service for attempting to maintain control of its bulletin boards could discourage any attempts at control whatsoever. Not only could this conceivably make it easier for defamers to spread on-line, it also makes it more difficult for a service to forbid flaming or, like Prodigy, provide a "family-friendly" forum for communication, or even to focus that forum on discussion of a specific topic, as many bulletin boards do. Further, laws that hold sysops liable for their content can, by making the sysop's position a hazardous one, discourage people and organizations from taking on this role, therefore reducing the usefulness of the Internet as a forum for communication among all users. There are some who will argue that this ultimately results in an unnecessary restriction on free communication, and that sysops should therefore not be held liable for defamation or other violations on their services under any circumstances. Others, of course, argue that defamation is a serious enough problem, especially on a forum like the Internet where false information is so easily spread, that all possible efforts should be made to discourage it, and this extends to making sysops responsible for the material they make available. The issue is new enough that neither courts nor legislation have yet rendered definitive verdicts on these questions; only time will tell how they are ultimately answered.
Conclusion: If people have a beef about what is posted, then report it to the mods and we will do out best to deal with it. Threats to close down the site and sue the arse off Bozza are unlikely to be successful and cost you a lot of money. Alternatively, find another site, this is for grown ups and people with a sense of humour.
Defining the Sysop
A sysop, or system operator, is defined as a person or organization who in some way manages the publication/distribution of material on-line. The most common example is the operator of a bulletin board where users are permitted to post messages which can then be read by other users. Such bulletin boards may be exclusive to a limited group of subscribers, or they may be accessible to anyone on the Internet. The exact role of the sysop can range from merely providing technical support for the posting and reading of messages to carefully reading and editing all published submissions. It is this disparity in the functions of individual sysops that leads to questions about the extent of a sysop's liability in individual cases.
One view of a sysop is as a common carrier, much the way telephone companies are legally viewed. Just as telephone companies attempt no control over what information is communicated across their wires, and are not held legally liable for the content of such communication, this view of a sysop indicates that the sysop provides a forum for any message the user wishes to communicate and is therefore not liable for the content of such a message. For such a definition to apply, the sysop would have to take no editorial or censorial control whatsoever over any postings; only then can he be considered a common carrier. An example of this might be the host of a live-chat room who in no way limits access to this chat room or monitors the conversations which take place therein.
The opposite role from a common carrier is what is called a publisher; in the case of print media, this is the company that actually prints the newspapers containing defamatory material. A publisher is held legally liable for the information it prints because it exercises full editorial control over that information; it is therefore assumed to be in a position to monitor its content for defamatory material. Many sysops are deemed to fit this role much more closely than that of distributor or common carrier, as past court decisions on sysop liability have shown. In Stratton vs. Prodigy (see Precedent section), a judge noted that Prodigy did exercise control over its content and could therefore be held responsible for that content. This definition of Prodigy as a publisher was later changed, but some sysops are still considered publishers under the law. A more definitive example would be a newsgroup moderator who reads and edits all material before any is posted; this moderator then clearly takes an active role in the dissemination of defamatory information.
A third category, between common carrier and publisher, is the category of distributor. Again, an analogy to print media is useful; the distributor in this case would be the newsstand which may sell a newspaper containing defamatory content. The newsstand is not assumed to be aware of the content of all the publications it sells and is therefore not held responsible for that content. However, in some situations, the newsstand may in fact be aware of defamatory content; in this instance, it can then be held liable for continuing to distribute this content. In general, a distributor is seen as taking only a passive role in possible defamation and is therefore not liable; only when some deliberate transgression (such as failing to remove material it knows to be defamatory) can be proven is the distributor liable. This category, sitting in the middle ground between two extremes, is the most difficult to define and deal with, but it seems to be the appropriate designation for many sysops, who will in general not attempt to monitor content but may take action to remove exceptionable content if it is brought to their attention. In Cubby vs. CompuServe (see Precedent section), CompuServe was deemed a distributor and therefore not held liable for defamatory material of which it could not be expected to have knowledge. However, the categorization also implies that if CompuServe had been made aware of this material, it would have been obligated to remove it.
Problems of Applying Traditional Definitions
Although these definitions can be and have been applied to sysops in Internet defamation cases, some problems do arise with such categorization. For instance, when Prodigy was deemed in court to be a publisher, many were concerned that penalizing a service for attempting to maintain control of its bulletin boards could discourage any attempts at control whatsoever. Not only could this conceivably make it easier for defamers to spread on-line, it also makes it more difficult for a service to forbid flaming or, like Prodigy, provide a "family-friendly" forum for communication, or even to focus that forum on discussion of a specific topic, as many bulletin boards do. Further, laws that hold sysops liable for their content can, by making the sysop's position a hazardous one, discourage people and organizations from taking on this role, therefore reducing the usefulness of the Internet as a forum for communication among all users. There are some who will argue that this ultimately results in an unnecessary restriction on free communication, and that sysops should therefore not be held liable for defamation or other violations on their services under any circumstances. Others, of course, argue that defamation is a serious enough problem, especially on a forum like the Internet where false information is so easily spread, that all possible efforts should be made to discourage it, and this extends to making sysops responsible for the material they make available. The issue is new enough that neither courts nor legislation have yet rendered definitive verdicts on these questions; only time will tell how they are ultimately answered.
Conclusion: If people have a beef about what is posted, then report it to the mods and we will do out best to deal with it. Threats to close down the site and sue the arse off Bozza are unlikely to be successful and cost you a lot of money. Alternatively, find another site, this is for grown ups and people with a sense of humour.
Last edited:
Lord Bracknell
On fire
I'm not 100 per cent sure that a libel lawyer would agree. Which is why message boards are uniquely vulnerable.jeremy beadles hand said:
In the particular instance that people have in mind at the moment, I think we did pretty well:-
2.22 Offending post appears
2.42 Possibility of legal action is raised by the person offended
2.45 Offending post is removed from the board
2.56 NSC is disabled, pending consideration of the seriousness of the threat of legal action
No-one can reasonably claim that NSC's administrators/moderators didn't deal with this issue seriously and promptly.
BTW I wasn't the moderator who removed the offending post.
Fact is that people, including myself, should know when to bite their tongues. A message board is only as good as it's posters and there should be some sort of self policing not involving the MODS sometimes. People were very quick to jump all over dwayne every time he made somekind of statement but most who saw the post thought nothing of it from what I've seen.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
I have been potentially seriously libeled by someone recently and as I use my real name I am thinking of referring it to my solicitors. What was written was incorrect and total unacceptable including death threats.
Was it anything to do with your 'racing tips' Gareth ?? 