will the lawyers kill YBW forums?

[dylanwinter]

While I care not a jot about anchors that might cost the rpice of my boat I am interested in the free flow of information

I fear that there is a good chance that the lawyers along with a general fear of litigation and posisbly timorous moderators will imasculate these fora.

However - nothing remains the biggest and the best forever.

Take some of the great yacht builders who are no longer with us

Who could have thought thet they would fade away?

time to toughen up at YBW perhaps

Dylan

 

[BrendanS]

Why? Even when Kim was moderating, and very hands on, he had to pull posts, and vented privately about the 4:55 on a Friday legal representations.
Mind you, back in those days, he used to hand out prizes for threads that went over 100, and that is no longer needed, threads of over a 1000 are exceptional, but not unheard of.
Back in those days, I could read every thread and post, and point people to relevant information. I can't now, as there are far too many.
So the forums have grown up, and a few threads get taken out. It's not really that big a deal, as very few are.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Sadly, I think we have to recognize that if the lawyers don't get involved from time to time then YBW's very existence could be at risk.

I do, however, believe that the blunderbuss need not be applied when it may just be one or two postings which are causing a problem. I also think that the complete blackout on any information to say what is happening is a mistake.

The old Rocna thread was pulled to allow "an investigation". Nothing more was heard. The danger is that YBW may inadvertently encourage complaints from lawyers who start to believe that all they need do is threaten litigation to remove discussions which make them feel uncomfortable.

 

[BrendanS]

Most of the pulling, if you go behind the scenes, has a reasonable and relevant reason. IPC have been burnt in the past, and it cost them a lot of money

 

[chanelyacht]

Lawyers probably won't, but users might kill it off.

We've seen a number of threads around my area of expertise (?) which have started as, or degenerated into, personal attacks or slanging matches. The same has happened on other areas.

Fact and reasonable opinion are fine - but describing people as cretins / crooks / etc is likely to attract some attention from those who may not wish such things to be said.

 

[Lakesailor]

Most of the pulling, if you go behind the scenes, has a reasonable and relevant reason. IPC have been burnt in the past, and it cost them a lot of money

Hmmm.

 

[BrendanS]

It's a fact, not supposition. Unlike many posts.

 

[electrosys]

It's a fact, not supposition. Unlike many posts.

That kind of response reminds me of an exchange I once read about:

A staunch Catholic (a nun, maybe ?) was asked what reasoned reply could be given to someone who doubted their faith - maybe even to someone who doubted the existence of 'big G' ...

Her reply was an absolute gem of an intellectual argument: "Tell them that they are wrong", she said.

 

[tcm]

Lawyers eh? Will they be able to prosecute the people who can't spell "emasculate", dyathink? I'm all in favour.

 

[Lakesailor]

It's a fact, not supposition. Unlike many posts.

I was questioning

Most of the pulling, if you go behind the scenes, has a reasonable and relevant reason

which you know not to always be the case.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

In fairness, Brendan did say "most of the pulling". i.e. not all. In other words he was saying that some of it is pulled unnecessarily. That's how I read it.

I've usually found that Brendan is very careful to be as precise as possible with these things, but you need to be work out exactly what he is saying.

 

[chinita]

IPC have been burnt in the past, and it cost them a lot of money

Can you give an example. Who burnt them and as a result of which thread?

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

In my view it is all a load of rubbish.

Ybw should not he held responsible or liable for nothing that is said on the forums. All they do is provide a technical platform. The comments and contributions are not their own so it is absurd that legal action could be taken against them.

Surely they could sort this with proper disclaimers?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Chinita,

It was the wingsail.
Not the result of a thread but an article in one of their magazines. It cost them a lot of money and, particularly as most people will have thought that what they said was fair comment, they are understandably twitchy about these things.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

In my view it is all a load of rubbish.

Ybw should not he held responsible or liable for nothing that is said on the forums. All they do is provide a technical platform. The comments and contributions are not their own so it is absurd that legal action could be taken against them.

Surely they could sort this with proper disclaimers?

Most of the time I would agree with that but if some unknown person were to start maliciously posting photoshop pictures of you with young boys (not that etc etc etc) you would certainly want YBW to do something about it.

It's at the extreme that somebody has to take responsibility for publication and it's difficult to see how you can relieve the website owners of that responsibility.

 

[Lakesailor]

Yes. Facebook seems to have avoided responsibility for hosting lots of things, but as a general rule website operators have been involved in these issues.

My comment you quoted related to some particular pulling of posts, which were not valid actions.

 

[paddy01]

In terms of liability for comments made on forums, the legal matters stem from whether the site is pro-actively or re-actively moderated. In general the heavier the moderation then the greater the responsibility held by the forum owner over the content of the forums.

Otherwise forums such as 4chan (I would not suggest visiting) would never exist.

So pulling entire threads if anything strengthens the legal beagles position, certainly in the future.

I don't have a horse in this race let alone a boat but thought it worth mentioning.

 

[timbartlett]

In my view it is all a load of rubbish....

I'm sure that will stand up in court. Especially if they were to include a disclaimer that says "the law of the land doesn't apply to us".

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

I'm sure that will stand up in court. Especially if they were to include a disclaimer that says "the law of the land doesn't apply to us".

I am sure someone will tell us exactly what law is the problem, but my point is that the law is an ass in this case.

A man puts up a fence
Another man writes derogatory graffiti on the fence.
A lawyer complains to the fence owner and wants the graffiti removed or the fence pulled down.

This is absurd.
The problem is the bloke with the felt tip pen.

 

[timbartlett]

I am sure someone will tell us exactly what law is the problem, but my point is that the law is an ass in this case.

A man puts up a fence
Another man writes derogatory graffiti on the fence.
A lawyer complains to the fence owner and wants the graffiti removed or the fence pulled down.

This is absurd.
The problem is the bloke with the felt tip pen.

The main piece of law is the Defamation Act 1966, but there are others (eg the Defamation Act 1952) which are also relevant.

The law holds the publisher responsible for what he has published. Why shouldn't it? Why should he profit by publishing defamatory material?

The main flaw with your analogy is that the owner of the fence did not (presumably) erect it specifically to provide a medium for graffiti.

Interestingly, I understand from some of my american colleagues that London has been described as "a town called sue" because our defamation laws are so heavily biassed against the media, and our juries are so inclined towards excessive awards to the so-called "victims".