Legality of Boards?

Time Magazine

Heya,

Just wondering, exactly how much case law has there been in Ireland regarding the use of the internet?

I remember two or three years ago there was a report in the local paper of a case in the DC where there was an assault on the defendent's premises. The plaintiff said the defendent invited him to his house via email; and when he went along he was then assualted. The defendent denied sending the email. I can't remember the defendent's exact defence, but the case was adjourned upon provision of the email.

The next week the paper reported that, on production of the email, the court found the defendent guilty and fined him something in the region of €500.

Could a similar claim be held on production of a PM? Or even a post?

Going by the warnings on PI/this board, I presume boards would be found liable if something illegal happened here (offering medical or legal advice). Could the burden of blame be portioned to the poster? Could boards completely pass the burden, or would they be guilty of some form of contribution to the offence?

What would the best equilibrium be? Should boards have total free speech? Should there be licensing system for registered boards with limited liability? Could it be proven who actually made the post?

ballooba

Not going to go to much into this as i'm not really that bothered and lots of people here are legal eagles I'm sure. Under Irish law Boards.ie would be seen as a publisher, especially so given the amount of moderatorship here, and as such responsible for the content of the site. As the publisher Boards could be implicated in Defamation suits among a whole host of other legal situations.

cormie

I find the fact boards could be held somewhat responsible something that should really be changed in the law. It's not as if boards review posts pre-publishing, they also have no control over what's said through PM. Where would V-Bulletin come into play here? It is after all the software which portrays the free speech. Is Vbulletin the phone as boards is the network? Is it not the same when you send a text through any network? Why not?

hullaballoo

The admins have ways to prove who's who. You leave footprints all over the internet which lead back to you, so of course you could be tracked.

Boards.ie is already a registered company, so limited liability applies. Add to that the moderators and disclaimers and charters etc and the net result is that it is very unlikely that Boards.ie Ltd would end up liable at all.

Time Magazine

Any case-laws?

It can be very hard to track an IP down to a person though. What about if somebody used a netcafé?

hullaballoo

Hehe, you should talk to DeV about this. He's got some fairly impressive stories. Muppets tend to always use the same cafés, so their traceable.

IP is just one of the clues.

Thirdfox

In my torts lecture I've been told that even a search engine can be sued for defamation (as it is consider publication). So a forum would definitely be held liable for comments made here (even PMs afaik).

hullaballoo

That's why flaming results in bannings. Reminds me, I have to modify the charter with a proper definition of defamation.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/01/06/libel-laws-in-ireland/ - a good definition here.

Thirdfox

But the law itself is a bit unclear - right-thinking people? Not really... just what the 12 members of the jury deem to be right... i.e. gay = defamation example...

dermot_sheehan

ballooba wrote:

Not going to go to much into this as i'm not really that bothered and lots of people here are legal eagles I'm sure. Under Irish law Boards.ie would be seen as a publisher, especially so given the amount of moderatorship here, and as such responsible for the content of the site. As the publisher Boards could be implicated in Defamation suits among a whole host of other legal situations.

As I recall from defamation law four and a half years ago there is a defence of innocent publication (this covers newsagents who distribute copies of newspapers with defamatory articles) under s. 21 of the defamation act 1961 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA40Y1961S21.html.

ballooba

Case Law:
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9505&L=irishlaw&D=0&P=22096

https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0003&L=irishlaw&O=A&P=5348

seamus

Angry Banana wrote:

It can be very hard to track an IP down to a person though. What about if somebody used a netcafé?

You'd be shocked at how much of a trail people leave behind them, particularly when they have to fill in details such as email address, etc.

I'm fairly confident that given the right contacts, and the fact that Ireland is small and the Irish webmaster community is quite tight-knit (despite the bitchiness) almost any poster could be tracked down to their place of residence in a matter of hours.

Goneshootin's thread about being ripped off is a perfect example of this. Even without access to any of his information on boards.ie (therefore not breaching the Data Protection Act), GS managed to gleam vast amounts of information about the guy.

Victor

Thirdfox wrote:

In my torts lecture I've been told that even a search engine can be sued for defamation (as it is consider publication). So a forum would definitely be held liable for comments made here (even PMs afaik).

I find it very hard to believe that a judge / jury could / would blame a search engine. Whatever about a website being blamed, the search engine could certainly claim innocent publication.

Would you sue a television company for showing a streetscape that had a newspaper headline in the background?

Thirdfox

Didn't they have the Irish Times case where a photo of a protestor carrying an alledgedly defamatory placard during a protest was put on the front page of the Times and the newspaper was sued?

ballooba

As far as I know the whole innocent publication is a very thin line and has strict and definite criteria.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Thirdfox wrote:

In my torts lecture I've been told that even a search engine can be sued for defamation (as it is consider publication). So a forum would definitely be held liable for comments made here (even PMs afaik).

Would that also mean that search engines are resonsible for displaying illegal material as a result of a search on their engine?

Thirdfox

I don't know... I was too shocked by the statement to ask for further clarification (also it was the last thing he said before leaving the lecture and no-one wanted to stay longer )

And online forums etc. are great for re-publishing info... there's a statute of limitations (afaik 1.5 years) between the publication and you starting proceedings but if there's an archive function e.g. Irish Times online you can claim republication if they have a libelous article stored online :eek:

Victor

Thirdfox wrote:

but if there's an archive function e.g. Irish Times online you can claim republication if they have a libelous article stored online :eek:

These tend to be pulled as soon as there is a reasonable objection.

Thirdfox

Wouldn't the damage have been done by then? (Or at least you could claim that )

Pythia

Angry Banana wrote:

Heya,
etc

Is this about that libellous post you made on boards Enda?

hullaballoo

Pythia wrote:

Is this about that libellous post you made on boards Enda?

Rachel, as you've been warned in other fora, if you have a greivance with Enda, please take it to the thunderdome or else deal with it in PM's or something. I'm a passivist, so this sort of agro irks me.

Victor

Actually, can a search engine claim the defence of being a common carrier?

For example you can't sue An Post for delivering a libellous letter(s), can you? An Post would need to know what was said and what it meant.

Laguna

Victor wrote:

Actually, can a search engine claim the defence of being a common carrier?

For example you can't sue An Post for delivering a libellous letter(s), can you? An Post would need to know what was said and what it meant.

That's what I'd believe, I mean how could a search engine be feasibly held accountable for something you have the ability to search for, that and the basis of how sites are added to a search engine, web spiders, which being non physical entities themselves, can hardly be blamed for adding, say, a libelous website to the search engines repertoire.

cormie

As users do we not control the publishing? Are we not all the publishers of our individual messages thus putting the responsibility to the individual user?

ballooba

In the eyes of the law the website is the publisher. Whether it's a news, website, bulletin board or search engine. Website owners are a lot easier to track down than users.

Thirdfox

...and have a lot more money... don't forget about the money!

besty

Thirdfox wrote:

...and have a lot more money... don't forget about the money!

Come again? The law is noble. Money is of no concern...

Thirdfox

"First thing we do, let's kill the lawyers" - quoted in quite a few law books actually! What Shakespearian play was it from again? King Lear?