'Blogger' had to pay damages for defamation -- Boards?

[Dave!]

Hey folks,

here's a link for ye: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/...yid=single6290

It was on the radio and so on today, and it's being highlighted that just because you're posting in a blog under the guise of an anonymous name doesn't mean that you're exempt from defamation, etc, laws.

So if you've got a blog and you start saying that George Bush makes love to ponies in his spare time, then the owner of the site can be ordered to give up your IP and your ISP can be ordered to give your details (and you'll then be held accountable for your words).

Assuming I'm understanding it correctly, this has serious implications does it not, for boards.ie, and similar message board sites? Surely it's the same principle/law. Would I be right in that?


And this also reminds me of a thread made a while ago called 'Are We Real?' in which the discussion was had about if I start saying things about the user 'Hagar', eg. that he steals television sets and turns them into bombs, then can I be held accountable for that? Bearing in mind (a) that it's online, but in light of the recent discussion about blogs that would probably not be relevent, and (b) that I am spreading rumours about 'Hagar' as opposed to his real name; but if I knew his real name and spread rumours about that could I be sued?

So basically,
Does this recent discussion, re:online defamation through blogs, mean that we'll have to watch what we say on boards from now on? (for fear of being sued rather than of hullabuloo banning us )

[hullaballoo]

You obviously haven't tasted my ban stick. You'd prefer to be sued.

[Dave!]

*backs away*



But on a serious note, you're a bit of a legal mind, is this at all relevent to boards?!

[Thirdfox]

I think it is relevant - never make a public statement that you're not willing to back up with facts and logic.

And didn't you say a lot more about Hagar than just accusing him of stealing T.V.s? (something about a dog named Roger? )

Spreading rumours with malice can be both defamation and malicious injury (am I right?)

At the end of the day, just don't say anything that you know to be untrue/think is possibly untrue (and defamatory!).

In fact, to be completely safe, don't say anything at all!

[Karoma]

So if you've got a blog and you start saying that George Bush makes love to ponies in his spare time...

AFAIK, under the current defamation laws in Ireland, the onus would be on GW Bush to prove that he doesn't. I'd personally love to see that!

[hullaballoo]

Well, the first person I banned from this forum was banned primarily because he defamed certain members of our government. I wouldn't have met out the penalty had it not been a serious offence.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2054893483

Both the poster and Boards.ie Ltd. are potentially liable for any defamatory comment posted on this website. It's governed by the same laws as any other medium, and damages are potentially much heavier as the internet reaches so many people (and especially since boards gets returned in the first few pages of almost every google search now)!

We have to try to commute the offence, which is why there are moderators who can edit posts and ban users for these sorts of things. We don't just do it because of some sort of personal vendetta against society as a whole. Or for the power trip. Or because of differences of opinion. By showing that we removed material immediately, and also that it got a certain number of hits etc. we can limit our liability somewhat.

Realistically, this is probably one of the safest fora from boards.ie Ltd's point of view, because there are two mods here with legal knowledge who can recognise potential liabilities for boards as they arise, and deal with them. On other boards, people might not recognise the likes of defamation as quickly, or may not realise the implications of it.

That said, many of the other moderators are well able to recognise dodgy material, and will air on the side of caution for the most part and just delete it.

Luckily, the matter hasn't ever arisen for us yet, so it remains to be seen what outcomes there might be, but to answer your original question: yes, boards, and the user can be held liable, just as anyone else can.

[Karoma]

We don't just do it because of some sort of personal vendetta against society as a whole. Or for the power trip. Or because of differences of opinion.

They're just the perks.

Generally speaking, both parties would be liable, but Boards LTD. would be an easier target to hit in a defamation case.


Defamation aside, could one sue Boards for resulting damages of clicking a on.****.org link?

[hullaballoo]

I think the effects of that link are too u****ortant to have any remedy in the court system. Who's going to sue for that? Making sure you don't click these links is pretty much internet users should be aware of.

[Karoma]

There were threats!

On a serious note, what if it were a link that did cause more substantial damage?

[hullaballoo]

I'm not aware of any precedents on the issue. To be honest, I don't think it's something that has been considered on a large scale yet.

Presumably there would be some right to recover if the damage warranted it. If it was a virus that wiped a hard disk, and there had been valuable information on it, then yes, I'd imagine there'd be a case.

[Karoma]

Does posting a link to an external site constitutes 'republishing' content? (Not solely in this context. ex:
If not, how can there be class actions in the States against search engines for Torrents,etc. ?)


I'm inclined to believe (In the EU at least) Boards would be classed as a "Mere conduit”...? (And subsequently not liable.)

[hullaballoo]

No, it's not a mere conduit. The directive you're talking about (which classifies these things) is Directive 2000/31/EC and it defines the following ISP categories:

Originally Posted by http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/01/06/libel-laws-in-ireland/

• “Mere conduit” essentially means providing no more than a telephonic network. A service provider who falls within the definition of a “mere conduit” is given immunity and will not be liable for damages or for any criminal sanction as a result of any transmission of information.

• “Caching”. ISPs often keep temporary copies of web pages on their servers so that users can access them more quickly. This kind of “automatic, immediate and temporary storage of information … for the sole purpose of making more efficient onward transmission of the information” will not render an ISP liable for defamatory statements contained in the cached pages. However, such immunity is lost where the ISP does not act quickly to remove a copy of a page when they are aware that the original page has been removed or that its removal has been ordered by a court.

• “Hosting” is the storage of information provided by subscribers. Large companies and organizations are their own hosts, but the sites of small to medium sized organizations and personal web-pages, blogs and discussion board sites will tend to be hosted by an ISP. Under the regulations, hosts are given an immunity from libel liability, which can be lost where a host is aware of defamatory content and fails to act expeditiously to remove or block the offending content.

Boards would more than likely fall into the "caching" category (it wouldn't appear to be a "hosting" ISP because the hosting body is Hostings365). Thus, it won't be liable, once the material is removed quickly, but will be otherwise.

[Haddockman]

So would hosting365 be liable for something defamatory on boards.ie?

[hullaballoo]

No, hostings aren't liable.

[Thirdfox]

What about search engines? Are they liable for finding defamatory material and publishing it for the whole world to see?