Is free speech a thing of the past in England.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

5 hours ago, medusa said:

However, a small local forum with no large owning company to fund legal bills could not afford to withstand even getting as far as being able to argue that they are not legally responsible for a post which was posted by a forum user. .

Look at the Scientologists.

 

99% of criticism of Scientology is not libellous and most is actually based on the publication of their own secret documents but very little anti-Scientology stuff lasts more than a few days on the internet because their lawyers contact the sites and say "Remove that content or we will sue you until you are bankrupt." It is not a question of right or wrong but simply who has the deepest pockets. The same goes for Ryanair.

[medusa 16]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Look at the Scientologists.

 

99% of criticism of Scientology is not libellous and most is actually based on the publication of their own secret documents but very little anti-Scientology stuff lasts more than a few days on the internet because their lawyers contact the sites and say "Remove that content or we will sue you until you are bankrupt." It is not a question of right or wrong but simply who has the deepest pockets. The same goes for Ryanair.

And as a small forum with no large company backing we have very shallow pockets.  Anybody who runs a forum in a similar situation and believes that they can run an 'anything goes' forum has just not come to the attention of the targets of those posts yet, because when they do, they will find themselves in the position of having to either capitulate and remove posts or threads, or to close the forum entirely if they don't have the money to fight a ridiculously expensive legal defence.

 

There are times when we may wish things to be different, but we live in the real world and we know when we have no real choice in how we handle things.

[26b-6 16]

8 hours ago, medusa said:

And as a small forum with no large company backing we have very shallow pockets.  Anybody who runs a forum in a similar situation and believes that they can run an 'anything goes' forum has just not come to the attention of the targets of those posts yet, because when they do, they will find themselves in the position of having to either capitulate and remove posts or threads, or to close the forum entirely if they don't have the money to fight a ridiculously expensive legal defence.

 

There are times when we may wish things to be different, but we live in the real world and we know when we have no real choice in how we handle things.

I'm a so called 'moderator' on Voat. https://voat.co/ and we've had trolls call me and others nonces, threats and everything else you can think of.  We don't delete any of these posts, trolls thrive and live off attention so we deprive them of it.   SF doesn't need to delete posts either, you do it because you have an agenda, which is fine.  But forums are supposed to be part of the solution to addressing many issues, not the problem.   Forums don't need moderating, they just need ignore buttons.

[Cyclone 10]

21 hours ago, spilldig said:

 

 

No, not at all . If someone wants to use insults, they can but I see it as counter-productive because the opposers just dismiss you and you lose any chance of bringing them to your way of thinking. tinfoilhat mentions in post 170 about posts being deleted etc and that irks me too. 

Post #156 says otherwise.

 

It's taken multiple pages of pointing out that free speech cuts both ways before you've changed what you're saying...

15 hours ago, medusa said:

However, a small local forum with no large owning company to fund legal bills could not afford to withstand even getting as far as being able to argue that they are not legally responsible for a post which was posted by a forum user.  Because of that unfortunate lack of deep pockets, we have to take whatever steps we feel necessary in order to never have to be in that position.

 

As a result of this, we have forum T&Cs, ask users to not post things which may be legally contentious on the forum and will remove anything that is reported to us that could result in having to get to any stage of defending against legal claims.  It is our prerogative to act in the interests of the forum, as long as we are operating within the laws of the land. 

 

Every legal argument costs money that the forum does not have, whether we are completely absolved or not.

Obviously if you are completely absolved then the costs are picked up by the organisation or person taking the action.

And given the extremely clear law and precedent around the area and this fact that should be enough to stop anyone taking action.

It is however your right to do what you wish at the meer empty threat of legal action.

9 hours ago, medusa said:

And as a small forum with no large company backing we have very shallow pockets.  Anybody who runs a forum in a similar situation and believes that they can run an 'anything goes' forum has just not come to the attention of the targets of those posts yet, because when they do, they will find themselves in the position of having to either capitulate and remove posts or threads, or to close the forum entirely if they don't have the money to fight a ridiculously expensive legal defence.

 

There are times when we may wish things to be different, but we live in the real world and we know when we have no real choice in how we handle things.

What makes you think that defending a baseless libel claim would be "ridiculously expensive"?

22 minutes ago, 26b-6 said:

I'm a so called 'moderator' on Voat. https://voat.co/ and we've had trolls call me and others nonces, threats and everything else you can think of.  We don't delete any of these posts, trolls thrive and live off attention so we deprive them of it.   SF doesn't need to delete posts either, you do it because you have an agenda, which is fine.  But forums are supposed to be part of the solution to addressing many issues, not the problem.   Forums don't need moderating, they just need ignore buttons.

I was (probably am) a moderator on an old martial arts forum that is no longer popular.

We banned trolls immediately.  The community included children and was generally a very polite and thoughtful one, it was quite clear when someone wasn't wanted and we saw no reason to let them disrupt the forum or to give them a platform.

 

Forums are whatever they want to be.  They can have an ignore button, they can ban people, they can do nothing.  There is no single rule or approach that all forums should follow.

[spilldig 188]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Post #156 says otherwise.

 

It's taken multiple pages of pointing out that free speech cuts both ways before you've changed what you're saying...

Obviously if you are completely absolved then the costs are picked up by the organisation or person taking the action.

And given the extremely clear law and precedent around the area and this fact that should be enough to stop anyone taking action.

It is however your right to do what you wish at the meer empty threat of legal action.

What makes you think that defending a baseless libel claim would be "ridiculously expensive"?

I was (probably am) a moderator on an old martial arts forum that is no longer popular.

We banned trolls immediately.  The community included children and was generally a very polite and thoughtful one, it was quite clear when someone wasn't wanted and we saw no reason to let them disrupt the forum or to give them a platform.

 

Forums are whatever they want to be.  They can have an ignore button, they can ban people, they can do nothing.  There is no single rule or approach that all forums should follow.

I expect people to post without insults because I think that's the way to do it, but it's their choice. What is worse is censorship.

[Cyclone 10]

That didn't seem to be your opinion several pages ago.

[bendix 10]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 4:42 PM, medusa said:

However, a small local forum with no large owning company to fund legal bills could not afford to withstand even getting as far as being able to argue that they are not legally responsible for a post which was posted by a forum user.  Because of that unfortunate lack of deep pockets, we have to take whatever steps we feel necessary in order to never have to be in that position.

 

As a result of this, we have forum T&Cs, ask users to not post things which may be legally contentious on the forum and will remove anything that is reported to us that could result in having to get to any stage of defending against legal claims.  It is our prerogative to act in the interests of the forum, as long as we are operating within the laws of the land. 

 

Every legal argument costs money that the forum does not have, whether we are completely absolved or not.

 

 

medusa, it's not a question of having to 'argue'.   It's a legal certainty.    Section 230 of the CDA is clear and unequivocal and has been universally applied on sites around the world.  

 

If it were possible to sue owners of forums and social media sites for the content that OTHERS - ie members created - giants like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc would never survive.  You do not need deep pockets.  If you get threatened with legal action, simply cite 230 at them.  Knowledge is more important than deep pockets.

 

I used a run a forum for expats in South East Asia.   I was getting threats of legal action every week, even from big companies like law firms and airlines.

 

I had a stock response.  "This is a user driven content website and as such the owners and manager of the website are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  If you would like to pursue legal action against whoever wrote the offending post, please feel free to contact them."

 

That was as far as it went.  It must have happened 30-40 times in a couple of years.

[Longcol 602]

6 minutes ago, bendix said:

 

 

medusa, it's not a question of having to 'argue'.   It's a legal certainty.    Section 230 of the CDA is clear and unequivocal and has been universally applied on sites around the world.  

 

If it were possible to sue owners of forums and social media sites for the content that OTHERS - ie members created - giants like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc would never survive.  You do not need deep pockets.  If you get threatened with legal action, simply cite 230 at them.  Knowledge is more important than deep pockets.

 

I used a run a forum for expats in South East Asia.   I was getting threats of legal action every week, even from big companies like law firms and airlines.

 

I had a stock response.  "This is a user driven content website and as such the owners and manager of the website are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  If you would like to pursue legal action against whoever wrote the offending post, please feel free to contact them."

 

That was as far as it went.  It must have happened 30-40 times in a couple of years.

Since when did USA legislation apply to the UK?

[bendix 10]

9 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Since when did USA legislation apply to the UK?

 

The Act may have been passed in the US, but its principle has been applied almost universally around the world.  Not sure if you've noticed, but the internet is a pretty global thing these days.  Section 230 is an established legal precedent and has been cited all over the world.  I'm struggling to think of an instance when 230 hasn't prevailed in the handful of cases it has been tested.

 

If that wasn't enough, the vast majority of websites - particularly forums - are hosted either on US servers or in the other countries by US server companies like GoDaddy, Linodoe etc.  As such they are covered directly by US legislation.  My own site concentrated on expats in Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos etc.  It's server was located in Singapore but was run by a US company.

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

8 minutes ago, bendix said:

 

The Act may have been passed in the US, but its principle has been applied almost universally around the world.  Not sure if you've noticed, but the internet is a pretty global thing these days.  Section 230 is an established legal precedent and has been cited all over the world.  I'm struggling to think of an instance when 230 hasn't prevailed in the handful of cases it has been tested.

 

If that wasn't enough, the vast majority of websites - particularly forums - are hosted either on US servers or in the other countries by US server companies like GoDaddy, Linodoe etc.  As such they are covered directly by US legislation.  My own site concentrated on expats in Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos etc.  It's server was located in Singapore but was run by a US company.

 

 

That's not how the law works at all.

US acts don't set precedence anywhere else, and clearly aren't the law anywhere else.

Fortunately the UK has a similar law which makes it clear that people are responsible for their own statements online and companies and sites which host those comments have only a limited liability.

A US law can't prevail or be tested in any country other than the US.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Cyclone

[bendix 10]

8 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

That's not how the law works at all.

US acts don't set precedence anywhere else, and clearly aren't the law anywhere else.

Fortunately the UK has a similar law which makes it clear that people are responsible for their own statements online and companies and sites which host those comments have only a limited liability.

True to an extent, but it's more nuanced than that.  I didnt say 230 was the law here.  I said that it's legal principle is accepted and used to uphold cases around the world.

 

I work for one of the largest law firms in the world and e have a very large IT and technology law division and we regularly advise internet giants like Google, BBC, Amazon etc.   Section 230 might not be written UK case law but its essential principle has been used regularly in tried cases involving websites, precisely because the internet crosses all jurisdictional borders.  You're right that many advanced countries like the UK have created very similar legislation such as the Defamation Act of 2013 and the EU has its Directive 2000/31 which are essentially 230 in local garb. 

 

My point remains.  Section 230 is an established legal precedent in these cases and is regularly used around the world.

Edited December 10, 2018 by bendix

[Top Cats Hat 10]

14 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

A US law can't prevail or be tested in any country other than the US.

I can't remember the exact details but wasn't Howard Marks extradited from Spain to the US although he had never been to the US and had never committed any offence in the US?