Defamation on the net. Perhaps worth counting to 10 before you press "Submit" button

[CookMySock]

That is more a matter for the site owners. It is their site, and therefore their content, and therefore their responsibility. It is fine to claim that content does not reflect their official position but legally it does.

A large part of the members on this site support their own self-esteem by smashing others', and site owners and moderators might just get to wondering just what sort of comebacks this could cause, as the perpetrators walk away laughing and site owners go sky high. Food for thought.

Steve

[Tank]

That is more a matter for the site owners. It is their site, and therefore their content, and therefore their responsibility. It is fine to claim that content does not reflect their official position but legally it does.

A large part of the members on this site support their own self-esteem by smashing others', and site owners and moderators might just get to wondering just what sort of comebacks this could cause, as the perpetrators walk away laughing and site owners go sky high. Food for thought.

Steve

As usual (at least you are consistent) - you are wrong. Which is surprising, because even strung out meth heads get it right once in a while.

It is not a matter for the site owners - they are NOT responsible for what others post (in regard to defamation). Using your logic - If I wrote "XYC abuses little boys" on the side of your barn - you would be responsible for the defamation - which you are not.

With defamation the comment must be "published or communicated to a person other than the person defamed. Thus it is the person publishing (ie the poster) not the site, that is accountable.

[Skyryder]

As usual (at least you are consistent) - you are wrong. Which is surprising, because even strung out meth heads get it right once in a while.

It is not a matter for the site owners - they are NOT responsible for what others post (in regard to defamation). Using your logic - If I wrote "XYC abuses little boys" on the side of your barn - you would be responsible for the defamation - which you are not.

With defamation the comment must be "published or communicated to a person other than the person defamed. Thus it is the person publishing (ie the poster) not the site, that is accountable.

If the site owner has been informed of the defimation and the content is not removed then there could be case to answer. You would need to prove that he was made aware of the defimation and by asking via a post to have the defimation removed might not constitute proof. The other thing that is not widely known is if a poster 'includes' the defimation in one of their posts they too could be charged along with the ogriginal poster. I'm not sayng they would be found guilty but by posting the statement of defimation the are equally dissmenating the defimation and could be equally as liabel But before proceeding you should always give the poster an oppetunity to retract. Preferaby in the forum where the defimation took place. By calling someone names you would not have a hope in hell of even getting to court but if you said that so and so was a burgler, rapist etc or some other 'less than desiralbe trait' you could fi9nd yaself in the shit. In most cases you can offer the belief or opinion as this negates a statement of fact but if for example it was stated that in so's opinion that x was a rapist and you could not give a valid reason for the the opinion again you could find yaself in the shit 'deeply.'
Then there is the question of 'linkages' where for example two sentances that on their own are not defamitory, but when linked together are. But that is a little more complex. Best just to call someone a cunt.....................it's safer that way..........at lest on the net. ha ha



Skyryder

[Usarka]

Best just to call someone a cunt.....................it's safer that way..........at lest on the net. ha ha

I tried just typing "cunt" but it told me I needed 10 characters!

[Coldrider]

I tried just typing "cunt" but it told me I needed 10 characters!

you have to be more descriptive.

[Max Preload]

Truth is an absolute defense to a charge of defamation.

Correct. As is honest opinion.

[Hitcher]

"What is defamation?
A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or which tends to cause him or her to be shunned or avoided, or which tends to cause a person to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or which is a false statement about a person to his or her discredit."

A "defamatory" statement is all that but the real kicker is that it has to be untrue if it people spreading such information are to be successfully prosecuted.

[Hitcher]

Correct. As is honest opinion.

Hmmm. Not necessarily. That would depend on the motivation/intent of the person spreading the defamation.

[CookMySock]

It stands to reason then, that systemic and prolonged abuse that results or is likely to result and some person being publicly belittled, that was reported to the moderators and has not been removed, could very well be actionable.

Moderators might do well to err on the side of caution.

Steve

[Tank]

It stands to reason then, that systemic and prolonged abuse that results or is likely to result and some person being publicly belittled, that was reported to the moderators and has not been removed, could very well be actionable.

Moderators might do well to err on the side of caution.

Steve

oooohhh - is that a threat???

Remember - there is a difference between abuse and defamation. Also just because someone is belittled - it dosnt mean that defamation has ever taken place - it could be that the 'victims' life just sucks and the belittlement is simply pointing out facts.

Also - remember its expensive to take a case and also that you have to prove a financial loss.

[Hitcher]

Moderators might do well to err on the side of caution.

And some members should perhaps just HTFU, or risk OOS from persistent and unnecessary usage of the "report post" facility.

[Hitcher]

Moderators might do well to err on the side of caution.

And some members should perhaps just HTFU, or risk OOS from persistent and unnecessary usage of the "report post" facility.

[Tank]

And some members should perhaps just HTFU, or risk OOS from persistent and unnecessary usage of the "report post" facility.

And some members should perhaps just HTFU, or risk OOS from persistent and unnecessary usage of the "report post" facility.

Some post are so good they deserve to be posted twice.

[CookMySock]

Rep and report is normal, appropriate, and recommended use of the forum, apparently just like your systemic abuse. If you don't like it then fuck off elsewhere.



Steve

[Hitcher]

Rep and report is normal, appropriate, and recommended use of the forum

But members aren't given a daily quota to fill. Most are also sufficiently thick-skinned and resilient to never use this facility. Moderators have better things to do than read endless and largely pointless whingeing.