Are we real?

Hagar

I have just been reading a thread in Feedback http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054892066 regarding non delivery of a mobile phone purchased in FS Mobiles.

Now it appears the thread was pulled because of statements made that may be libelous. Now here is the question it has raised in my mind "Are we real?" Can you libel someone who doesn't actually exist? (Ignoring legally registered entities)

I, Hagar do not exist. So how can Hagar be libelled? Hagar is a persona created for my own amusement. The real me cannot be harmed in any way by anything you say about Hagar. You don't even know the real me. Everthing in my CP may be false. Every opinion I have expressed in everyone of my posts may be false. There is no guarantee that the real me is even legally responsible for my own actions let alone Hagar's actions.

Can Boards.ie be held liable for fictitious damages caused to a fictitious persona?

Dave!

Legal Discussion forum tbh!!!

Or else Philosophy ¬_¬

TerrorFirmer

There was a "MkII Turbo" edition of the Jaguar....?

ZiabR

No

Hagar

I posted it here because it affects all posters and may not be see by people who don't visit our more esoteric forums.
I'm just trying to reach a wider audience because its a sort of "PC" thing rather than a legal thing.

Mods please move if appropriate.

Sleepy

I post therefore I am.

Dave!

Hagar wrote:

I posted it here because it affects all posters and may not be see by people who don't visit our more esoteric forums.
I'm just trying to reach a wider audience because its a sort of "PC" thing rather than a legal thing.

Mods please move if appropriate.

Fair dues, you just might find more legally-educated people in there, so you'll get better replies. Don't bother me though!

stevenmu

Are we real ? No, I don't think so. I've often wondered about this in relation to how insulted some people get over comments made on boards. There have been a few people who've even threatened to at least confront someone in real life over some slight percieved insult. I used to find it funny that people get so caught up in their online personas that they take it seriously enough to be genuinely insulted, but now I just find it a bit disturbing.

Hagar wrote:

Can Boards.ie be held liable for fictitious damages caused to a fictitious persona?

Very possibly, in the thread you mentioned, the persons real life details were given so I think they could be (altough the claims made have evidence to back them up so I think that would have been ok). If it was purely done through online personas/avatars then I've no idea, but it would be interesting to find out. I'd guess not because I think the avatar would have to be the one bringing the case, but I don't think a court would accept said avatar to exist.

danniemcq

well we aren't fictitious we are just hidden behind nicknames. it takes the person to post.

just because you don't see or talk directly to the person doesn't make them any less real

Hagar

"Danniemq rogered my dog senseless..."*

Has that damaged the real you whoever you are? Has it damaged Danniemq? Can it damage Danniemq? Can Danniemq sue Hagar? Can the real you sue the real me? Are we actually the same person posting under different personae? Prove we're not.

*Poor senseless never got over it.

Kernel

Many people don't see their online accounts as personas, they post honestly as themselves under a nickname. Anyway, if I go around in real life using an alias, and commit a crime, I can hardly claim that my persona committed the crime and not me. At the end of the day, I was the person resonsible for my actions, whether I call myself Kernel or any other name. Look at the jailing of hackers, and you'll understand what I mean - they also operate under an alias.

Legally speaking, the reason the thread was pulled - as far as I know, was because the person in question had personal details released about him and he felt libelled in some way.

If you post someone's name, phone number, address or whatever, then you are not dealing with a simple online persona anymore, you're referring to a 'real' individual.

seamus

Moved to Legal Discussion (and there's a similar thread already here).

In your example above, there are two possible cases for Danniemq sueing on the grounds of libel:

1) If you added in some contact details for the real-life Danniemq, then you have linked his actual persona with the statements you've made. This would also hold, if you said "Danniemq rogered my dog senseless", and then claimed that Danniemq's real persona was Kate Moss - Kate Moss could sue for libel (even though she doesn't even use boards).

2) If acquaintences of Dannie's are aware of the link between his online and actual personas, and take your comments as being serious.

In the latter case, Danniemq would have to prove the link between his personas, but that's not difficult.

The key is that Danniemq would have to assert that his reputation had been damaged in some way. If you made the statements, but nobody was aware of Dannie's real persona, or if the only people who know Dannie in real life, are you and Dannie, then he has no grounds for damage to his reputation.

It does also work the other way - if Dannie wished to sue for libel, he would sue boards as publisher. But if he wanted to sue you directly, he could use the trail you've left in your 4 years here to track you down. If he can show a logical, working link between you and your boards.ie persona, (posts on other forums where you used your real name, and the same email address as in a post you made here in 2003, for example) then he has you. You would have to provide evidence that counters his.

Hagar

For the record let me state the Danniemq never rogered my dog senseless. It was just a fictitious statement contrived to elicit opinions on the legal standing on such a statement. Apologies for any hurt to either Danniemq or my dog Senseless.

danniemcq

Hagar wrote:

"Danniemq rogered my dog senseless..."*

Has that damaged the real you whoever you are? Has it damaged Danniemq? Can it damage Danniemq? Can Danniemq sue Hagar? Can the real you sue the real me? Are we actually the same person posting under different personae? Prove we're not.

*Poor senseless never got over it.

wel yeah if that was said online it should be treated the same way as if it were said in RL, it's an attack on my character (online or not) and if i wanted or the insults/attack was serious enough i assume you could be tracked and
sued.
It's not hard to find out details of people that use the net (ip address, credit cards etc) so by saying things in your supposed safety and anonimity online just doesn't work.

/edit don't worry hagar i haven't contacted my lawyer ... yet! be thankful i read your apology

Kermitt

i would be interested in the legal implications of danniemcq being a banana :v:

hullaballoo

There is something that crops up in libel cases a lot called "inuendo". It's fairly self-explanatory in that it refers to a situation where no actual names are mentioned (or, no defamatory comment is made about a named person), but there's an innuendo there that either hints at the person, or hints at what they did.

I'd imagine that if somebody said "danniemcq rogered my dog senseless", that the person who operates the account "danniemcq" might have a case.

It would take some fairly inventive reasoning though.

However, that's boards.If somebody said "that guy Brave Starr is an awful eejit", then I don't think that that ficticious character could have any recourse. It's an interesting question though.

besty

danniemcq wrote:

It's not hard to find out details of people that use the net (ip address, credit cards etc) so by saying things in your supposed safety and anonimity online just doesn't work.

Protection of Information would be a barrier to obtaining most of those

danniemcq

well yeah but if you went through the proper authorities and not some vigilanty mission it could be accomplished

tj-music.com

All this "I sue you" ****e - deformation of character thing and so on. Although one should always be able to defend themselfes if someone talks bull**** about them but it has become a habit that people sue people often over nothing really

hullaballoo

Albeit that your legal analysis may leave something to be desired tj, you have a good point. Personally I think defamation is a joke. In the words of Dr Paul Anthony McDermott, "Defamation is one of the last remaining circuses of the common law system".

Thirdfox

"Personally I think defamation is a joke"

Yet P~B was edited for defaming the politicians ?

I don't like torts in the suing mentality everyone builds up... much prefer defending fundamental human rights!

hullaballoo

Well, it's a good job you live in this country then; personal injury claims are now looked after by the Personal Injury Assessment Board in an effort to minimise the number of cases conjesting the courts.

It's a step in the right direction so we don't end up like the US.

I was going to ignore the p~b comment, but I have to say this: irrespective of whether or not I agree with the rules and laws of the land, I have a job to do in this forum, and I will do it.

frobisher

Hagar wrote:

Can Boards.ie be held liable for fictitious damages caused to a fictitious persona?

I think that a fictitious persona that isn't a regestired trademark could still be claimed to intellectual property. But if the damages are fictitious then you won't have a leg to stand on. (Unless your fictitious persona can levitate).

Time Magazine

Damn my thread for being hijacked!

Who owns the copyright of the posts, Mr. Poster or Boards.ie Ltd?

Whatever about user liability, I can't see boards getting off scot-free. It is, after all, the publisher.

hullaballoo

That's what the charter's for.

Time Magazine

But the Charter isn't a legally over-riding document surely?

If the Charter could get boards off, why doesn't The Irish Times include a charter on the front page of each edition?

Victor

I think only if the persona can be linked to a real person or the persona itself has intellectual value could a person sue.

It would be arguable if it was said that I rogered someone's dog and linked to a video allegedly to be be allegedly doing it, that I have been harmed. Not only is the name Victor known to a select few (thousand) here, but that name is also link to my real name and people in the real world. I would justifiably feel harmed. More so, if siad allegations were made about Seamus, it would be stronger, given that it is part of his real name and more so for someone that uses their complete name.

If the accusation was made about Deathgiver2003 (one of Amp's alter ego's in muppet form), there would be a much weaker case. Likewise someone with 1 post.

hullaballoo

Angry Banana wrote:

But the Charter isn't a legally over-riding document surely?

If the Charter could get boards off, why doesn't The Irish Times include a charter on the front page of each edition?

A disclaimer wouldn't work for the Irish Times because they have preceding editorial control over everything that's published. The charter represents the rules by which you are required to post in the forum. If you read the forum charter for this forum, you'll know that by posting in the forum, you are accepting the rules of the forum. In reality, the same goes for all fora, but it's expressly laid out in the charter for this forum.

You'd be very surprised what sort of disclaimers are accepted.

Hagar

It seems to be established that these personae have, at some level at least, duties and obligations. It makes me wonder how far does their existance goes? Do they have any rights of any sort?

Time Magazine

Haha and if they have rights could one sue for unfair banning?!

We're all endeared to boards so it's always going to be a case on side with them.

Let's assume a case.

Reasonable member of the public is libelled, only slightly - not enough for the mods to know any different - but significantly enough nonetheless on another, localised forum where everyone knows everyone else. It genuinely causes him to be damaged for whatever reason. Maybe somebody said he was in the bank at this time when he wasn't and for whatever reason it means his wife leaves him.

The post was made by a new poster who posted from an cyber café, and hasn't appeared back there since. The kid behind the counter couldn't identify him.

Assume that he has a case to sue. Who does he sue? It has to be the forum surely? Is the onus then on the forum to find the cyber café user? Or does that onus not exist at all, seeing as they were the publisher?

Either way, it's open to boards.ie getting screwed. Let's say I have a grudge against Ecksor. I could go into a cyber café in Cork (I live in Kildare) while visiting my nephew. I fire up a new account, and on the Greyhound Racing board I subtly suggest the real-life Angry Banana did something he didn't. I could then sue boards for my own post??

But then again, the innocent go who didn't go to the bank has suffered. He deserves to be compensated by someone. And if the poster can't be found, should it be the victim who suffers?

I suppose, in real-life, if a guy punches you and runs off it's your problem.

Keeping our grá for boards aside, surely the publisher has to have some liability. Otherwise I could set up a board that libels eveyrone under the moon and get away with it.

Maybe the best solution would be that if the forum can be shown to have acted negligently itself it then holds some responsibilty?

But that leads to the problem of who owns the website. I could set up a website from a cyber-café in Cork.

It really is tough, huh?

Thirdfox

...and that's how lawyers earn their crust... by constantly debating grey areas of law in court, time = money (literally!)

Of course if everything was clear cut then we wouldn't have a lot of law cases... if you know that if you say X then you will be found guilty then what's the use in fighting the thing in court?

gaf1983

I'm after coming across some guy's Finay Year Project entitled 'Good Name on the Line Online - The Tort of Defamation on the Internet' - it may have some answers to the questions posed in this thread.

Here it is:
http://www.skynet.ie/~beer/fyp/fyp.pdf

danniemcq

hmmm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/internet_libel_payout/

it was the poster not the site (yahoo) that got done in this case against the UK independance party

Eru

seamus wrote:

Moved to Legal Discussion (and there's a similar thread already here).

In your example above, there are two possible cases for Danniemq sueing on the grounds of libel:

1) If you added in some contact details for the real-life Danniemq, then you have linked his actual persona with the statements you've made. This would also hold, if you said "Danniemq rogered my dog senseless", and then claimed that Danniemq's real persona was Kate Moss - Kate Moss could sue for libel (even though she doesn't even use boards).

2) If acquaintences of Dannie's are aware of the link between his online and actual personas, and take your comments as being serious.

In the latter case, Danniemq would have to prove the link between his personas, but that's not difficult.

The key is that Danniemq would have to assert that his reputation had been damaged in some way. If you made the statements, but nobody was aware of Dannie's real persona, or if the only people who know Dannie in real life, are you and Dannie, then he has no grounds for damage to his reputation.

It does also work the other way - if Dannie wished to sue for libel, he would sue boards as publisher. But if he wanted to sue you directly, he could use the trail you've left in your 4 years here to track you down. If he can show a logical, working link between you and your boards.ie persona, (posts on other forums where you used your real name, and the same email address as in a post you made here in 2003, for example) then he has you. You would have to provide evidence that counters his.

All true and wasn' t this the problem with Indymedia UK when a thread called for criminal acts and they were followed up? I cant rememebr fully but I believe servers and records were seized and charges at least contemplated if not actually brought.

AnnaStezia

I thought than an innuendo was an Italian suppositry.:)