uxb
New member
Eeeerm... like the cretins and crooks?
will the lawyers kill YBW forums?
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
Eeeerm... like the cretins and crooks?
T
timbartlett
Guest
Defamation is fundamentally different from most offences in that the prosecution does not have to prove the accused guilty: it is up to the defendant to prove himself innocent.
"The Truth" is a notoriously difficult defence. I suggest that it would be particularly difficult if the person you accused of being a cretin did not, in fact, suffer from hypothyroidism (?? -- if that's what cretinism is) or if those you accused of being crooks did not have criminal records.
dunedin
Well-known member
No, lawyers don't threaten the forum - it is the litigation minded companies or individuals who get the lawyers involved.
Something to consider before deciding where to place future orders
Something to consider before deciding where to place future orders
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I'm not sure that that's correct.
Firstly, to be pedantic, in a civil action there is no "prosecution". There is a "plaintiiff" (the claimant) and a "defendant".
More importantly, I don't think you are right in saying that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove his case. AFAIK both sides are given the opportunity to make their case which is then determined "on the balance of probability"
Last edited:
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
The main flaw with all of this is that ybw are being considered to "publish" what is on the forum. That's where the absurd nonsense starts.
I can fully understand that they are responsible for magazine content. They have editorial control and should be liable.
The idea that they can and should exercise editorial control over the content of a public forum that is subscribed to by anonymous contributors is ridiculous.
paddy01
Member
Unfortunately I've no idea where my posts will appear in the flow as I'm new and their still being moderated before posting.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the laws of defamation etc. do still apply, however the liability for those comments will depend on the level of moderation applied to a forum.
If a forum has no moderation then it would be nigh on impossible to hold the forum owners to account for the comments.
If they practice full moderation of all posts before they appear then they would assume liability for the content.
In both cases it is expected that the forum owners have a robust take-down procedure (for individual posts not whole threads) in the event that someone wishes to complain.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the laws of defamation etc. do still apply, however the liability for those comments will depend on the level of moderation applied to a forum.
If a forum has no moderation then it would be nigh on impossible to hold the forum owners to account for the comments.
If they practice full moderation of all posts before they appear then they would assume liability for the content.
In both cases it is expected that the forum owners have a robust take-down procedure (for individual posts not whole threads) in the event that someone wishes to complain.
chanelyacht
Well-known member
According to my little sister, who is actually a libel lawyer, the problem for YBW (or any organisation) starts when the cease having access to the defence of being "an innocent diseminator".
For example - I say "SolentBoy plays with little kiddies"
Everyone reads it, and his reputation is damaged.
At this point, YBW have no liability - they are innocent diseminators.
SolentBoy (rightly) complains to YBW and asks them to remove it.
It is from this point onwards their defence falls, as they now know about it, and consequently can be liable if they do nothing.
It's different for newspapers, etc who would be employing a journalist (even indirectly) and who writes the same about SolentBoy. They, as a publisher, have a duty to carry out due diligence on what they publish.
Interestingly, one of the main people who fall foul of this are the credit reference agencies. They try to claim that incorrect information they hold and republish to their customers falls under "innocent disemination". Most counsel take the view it doesn't - they profit from its disemination, therefore have a duty of diligence.
Lakesailor
New member
So, is Solentboy suing?
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
Perhaps, but first I am going to ask ybw to remove me from the forum as I am a danger to myself
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Perhaps, but first I am going to ask ybw to remove me from the forum as I am a danger to myself
Been fiddling with yourself again?
maxi77
Active member
I must admit this is pretty much as I understand it. Mind you all YBW would have to to to protect themselves would be to delete the offending post, not the whole thread. I fail to see why whole threads disappear never to be seen again when most of the content is not offensive in law.
Mind you I do find it equally strange that some people think that posting on forums is in some way exempt from the law and persist in posting items are actionable
BrendanS
Well-known member
Pay for access to the forums, and then they can afford to employ people to delete single posts instead of threads, after determining which ones should go. Simple.
chinita
Well-known member
Contentious threads are pretty obvious. Even a numpty like me can identify them.
Surely it is not too onerous to identify offending/litigious posts and remove; leaving the pertinent information which everyone wants. There is one YBW Moderator who seems to find sufficient time to post his own input.
I don't buy the 'too busy' line.
Surely it is not too onerous to identify offending/litigious posts and remove; leaving the pertinent information which everyone wants. There is one YBW Moderator who seems to find sufficient time to post his own input.
I don't buy the 'too busy' line.
snooks
Active member
Who's that then?
chinita
Well-known member
Who's that then?
Obviously aint you as you need your beauty sleep before another hard day at the terminal