Fair Comment or Libel?

DeVore

Need a bit of quick help. I've PM'ed Hullaballo the details but this is a general request for direction.

We frequently get posters who post how unhappy they are with a company, or more commonly simply advise another poster "not to touch them with a barge pole".

Then the company finds the comment on Google when doing a vanity search for themselves and goes ballistic on us.

Where do we stand then?

DeV.

Chakar

Well of course you have a disclaimer distancing boards.ie from the comments of a individual poster.Boards.ie cannot restrict the freedom of speech of posters and basically its not boards business.

mike65

he he! Motors has a nice thread going at the moment, I'm thinking of stickying it but with the proviso that complaints about named parties need to be related in detail and that the poster should be willing to stand over his/her
finger-pointing.

Mike.

dermot_sheehan

Just flicking through McMahon & Binchy, "fair comment" is restricted to public matters relating to the Government or the administration of the state or to matters of literary, artistic or similar nature submitted to the public for approval.

Innocent dissemination seems to be an appropriate defence for boards, provided boards in carrying on its business properly neither knew nor ought to have known that the publication in question contained a libel, they are not deemed publishers at all.

However if a publisher knew or ought to have known a statement was defamatory, they are liable. For example in Berry v. Irish Times the defendent published a photo containing an alleged defamatory statement and was held to be the publisher.

jhegarty

has there ever been a case against an internet board in ireland ?

focusing

The nature of boards is such that a mod failing to delete a post would create legal difficulties, where innocently carrying the initial post wouldn't create liability.

A post that simply contains a complaint (fact) together with an opinion (comment) is not capable of being libel as long as it doesn't make false or general accusations.

"I bought X from Y Ltd. and it didn't work. Their customer service rep was very rude when I complained. I wouldn't recommend you use them." wouldn't be actionable.

"Y Ltd. are a bunch of crooks." etc. would be potentially actionable.

People sometimes send a "That's libel, I'm going to sue you if you don't delete it" email or letter in the heat of the moment when they see something bad said about them, without any possibility of them actually issuing proceedings.

The extent to which you edit posts is up to Boards Ltd., balancing freedom of speech v. pragmatism.

If you receive a serious threat of legal action, I'd suggest a pragmatic edit to say:

"ABC's post has been deleted by the moderators as the result of a threat of legal action by Y Ltd." which will probably do as much harm to your complainant but is legally fine. It's a nice way to raise two fingers in polite salute.

padser

focusing wrote:

The nature of boards is such that a mod failing to delete a post would create legal difficulties, where innocently carrying the initial post wouldn't create liability.

A post that simply contains a complaint (fact) together with an opinion (comment) is not capable of being libel as long as it doesn't make false or general accusations.

"I bought X from Y Ltd. and it didn't work. Their customer service rep was very rude when I complained. I wouldn't recommend you use them." wouldn't be actionable.

"Y Ltd. are a bunch of crooks." etc. would be potentially actionable.

People sometimes send a "That's libel, I'm going to sue you if you don't delete it" email or letter in the heat of the moment when they see something bad said about them, without any possibility of them actually issuing proceedings.

The extent to which you edit posts is up to Boards Ltd., balancing freedom of speech v. pragmatism.

If you receive a serious threat of legal action, I'd suggest a pragmatic edit to say:

"ABC's post has been deleted by the moderators as the result of a threat of legal action by Y Ltd." which will probably do as much harm to your complainant but is legally fine. It's a nice way to raise two fingers in polite salute.

Thats pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

The fact that the moderating on boards is stricter and more heavily censored then other sites will actually work significantly to your disadvantage.

The post about deleteing posts and saying why is a good idea.

One point on 'I bought X from Y Ltd. and it didn't work'. This is potentially actionable if it turned out not to be true.

Best practive would be to remove anything complained about by companies. Or ensure that it is at the very least factual, and by regular posters who are more likely to be telling the truth.

DeVore

We've never been successfully sued, we've had lots of complaints and legal letters and on (fairly rare) occasions we have removed posts by users because we felt they were unjust.

Funny you should mention it Focusing, but on two occasions when two (extremely rude and aggressive) people pressed the issue, (one a big rental agency over the Accommodation Forum) I told them I would delete the offending posts but that I would sticky a post of my own explaining the situation and barring their name from EVER being posted again in that forum.

Never heard from either of them again.


But you all seem to have missed my point. I knew years ago when we got into this that speech online in this country has never been free. The threat that *someone* *somewhere* might say something on the site and we'd be liable for it has always been clear and maintains an unhealthy choke lock on people (like us) offering a platform for the public. So, preferably I would like to remove the actionable stuff and leave the fair comment.

Hence I'm looking for rules to decide what is and isnt actionable.

Let me give you some real examples:

"I personally think ABC ltd are a load of crap. Can't really recommend them. They're cheaper cause the cut corners more or less. I know alot of people use their stuff and have no problem with them but you get what you pay for. Again can't comment on their nordic pine windows only have had experience with the pvc windows and their teak front doors. As far as I can say is if you can afford better stuff for your house buy it, if not then think about ABC ltd"

"We were told to steer clear as they glaze from outside and are notorious about having bad measurers in some areas. Just telling you what I was told can't comment other than that."

"The thing that would put me off ABC ltd my mate used them and he is not happy with them"
"I've just completed a job with them, wouldnt touch them with a barge pole!"
"About same price as ABC ltd but better quality"


DeV.

Turner

Cue complaint from ABC

http://www.abcwindows.net/

focusing

I'm not sure it would be ethical to ban all mention of a company in general, maybe banning all mention in a particular thread might be more proporionate.

Remember above all, nothing is defamation unless it's untrue.

So, personal experience along the "I used them and was not satisfied and so suggest avoiding them" lines is generally fine (once true), whereas general rumours like the "I've heard / they're notorious for being a shower of crooks" type of post will cause you problems.

Your biggest problem in those examples is:

"They're cheaper cause the cut corners more or less"

I wouldn't stand over the second one either.

Posters relying on personal experience and the experience of people they know should keep you in line with the law. If a poster can prove the content of their post, leave it up, if they can't try the "ABC's post has been deleted by the moderators as the result of a threat of legal action by Y Ltd." edit.

Don't be bullied by idle threats where the content is true or isn't capable of being defamatory.

I'm not a regular on politics.ie, but I remember a thread about an abuse of the planning process by a Fine Gael Councillor in relation to his own property that was locked and edited as the result of a legal threat.

Turned out the threat was from a secondary student from Greystones and was of absolutely no merit whatsoever (the initial post truthfully reflected the planning file which is a matter of public record), but the site's owner was sufficiently bullied to delete all the posts on the subject.

jhegarty

If the rules had to be enforced like that could you even run boards.ie any more?

I have a problem with my ford focus , it keeps breaking down. It would be hard to discuss a problem with a car without giving the make or model... so shut down motors..

I assume any issues with vodafone/o2/metor/nokia..etc.. would be banned from mobiles , so shut that down...

any problem with windows in computers would be out of the quesiton... so thats gone....

any mention of an airline in travel....

you see where I am going.......

focusing

That's a good set of examples.

"My Ford Focus keeps on breaking down / I've had 2 Nokia phones and both broke within 3 months / I can never get a reception for 02 in BallyX, I'll never use their products again" should all be fine.

I agree that banning mention of a particular company in a forum is a bad idea.

DeVore

Unless they need us more then we need them. You'd be surprised how many companies get business (or lose business) as a result of their reputations on Boards.

I've cleaned the thread in question and I'm happy with whats been said now.

DeV.

hullaballoo

Focusing and gabhain pretty much have most of the angles covered. I think that it's probably a defence to plead innocent dissemination until it's brought to your attention that someone might have an issue with it.

I usually get rid of it on-sight, just to be safe.

maidhc

I don't think anyone has said anything wrong, but it should be noted that what DeVore is talking about here is a SLAPP, OR "A Strategic lawsuit against public participation".

Despite the "McLibel Case", Ireland, or the UK to my knowledge, have yet to intoduce anti-slapp legislation, however in light of that case, the ECHR Act 2003, and DCC v. Fennell, it is fair to say a strong argument can be made that the defamation laws would be applied quite leniently to boards.ie if ever the occasion arose.

Wikipedia has a good balanced article on the McLibel case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

Steel & Morris v. UK. (essential reading):
http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2005/103.html

Californian anti-slapp legislation (what we should have):
http://casp.net/cal425.html

focusing

Getting rid of posts just because they have a negative comment about a business defeats the whole point of public access message boards.

And getting rid of posts just because someone complains and throws in an empty threat of a libel suit is just giving into bullying. Don't be bullied by idle threats where the content is true or isn't capable of being defamatory.

Clearly libellous material should obviously be removed, but there's no point in having boards if posts are deleted or threads locked because of an irrational paranoia based on an unrealistic, contrived and pedantic fear of being successfully sued.

(That’s just as much a comment about the strange practice here of locking threads that discuss the practical application of the law.)

Victor

DeVore wrote:

Funny you should mention it Focusing, but on two occasions when two (extremely rude and aggressive) people pressed the issue, (one a big rental agency over the Accommodation Forum)

:eek: Did you tell me?

rsynnott

focusing wrote:

That's a good set of examples.

"My Ford Focus keeps on breaking down / I've had 2 Nokia phones and both broke within 3 months / I can never get a reception for 02 in BallyX, I'll never use their products again" should all be fine.

I agree that banning mention of a particular company in a forum is a bad idea.

Well, these ones are vague enough that they can be assumed to be true, in any case. Inevitably, there ARE some Ford Forcuses(Foci?) that keep breaking down, some unlucky people will have Nokia phones breaking in rapid sequence, and there are some places where you WON'T get reception for O2. For someone to attempt to claim otherwise would be bizarre.

maidhc

focusing wrote:

Getting rid of posts just because they have a negative comment about a business defeats the whole point of public access message boards.

I second that.

hullaballoo

focusing wrote:

Getting rid of posts just because they have a negative comment about a business defeats the whole point of public access message boards.

And getting rid of posts just because someone complains and throws in an empty threat of a libel suit is just giving into bullying. Don't be bullied by idle threats where the content is true or isn't capable of being defamatory.

Clearly libellous material should obviously be removed, but there's no point in having boards if posts are deleted or threads locked because of an irrational paranoia based on an unrealistic, contrived and pedantic fear of being successfully sued.

(That’s just as much a comment about the strange practice here of locking threads that discuss the practical application of the law.)

What's "clearly libellous material"?

maidhc

hullaballoo wrote:

What's "clearly libellous material"?

hullabaloo is a thief, vagabond and gombeen man.

rsynnott

maidhc wrote:

hullabaloo is a thief, vagabond and gombeen man.

For all we know you might have proof of all that.

DeVore

This is a fascinating discussion for me.

My points would be:

1. I am not a lawyer. I do not know what is Clearly Libelous or not. I have a pretty good idea but I'm not a judge either so I don't know for sure.

2. If I pull on the thread of "delete it to be on the safe side" there would be no boards.

3. My main reason for doing boards is to NOT allow our public expression to be curtailed because of what MIGHT be said. Thats a really convenient manner of controlling everyone's ability to get a message out there without ACTUALLY breaching the UN Charter of human rights.

If you choke the publishers, you kill the mass broadcast ability of the populace.


So where does that leave me? Well lets think of the defining line between Legal and Illegal (read: Defamatory and Non-Actionable) as a real line.
I dont get to know where that line is exactly (I have to use my non legal brain to guess) but I AM told that if I step over it I'll get slapped. Now, pretend you are me. How close to that line do you go?
Do you let people criticises companies? Do you allow political expression?
If you find yourself in charge of a site like this, now pretty much unique in this country for its size and function, do you have a *duty* to walk as close to that line as you feel comfortable? Or do you simply cut anything dodgy?


I really wish you lawyer types would make the laws less, well, ass-like

DeV.

DeVore

maidhc wrote:

hullabaloo is a thief, vagabond and gombeen man.

"thief" might be actionable but the rest is "gross abuse" neh?

DeV.

maidhc

DeVore wrote:

This is a fascinating discussion for me.

1. I am not a lawyer. I do not know what is Clearly Libelous or not. I have a pretty good idea but I'm not a judge either so I don't know for sure.

You are as good as anyone else so! A defamation is something which "tends to lower a person in they eyes of right thinking members of society".

This is not a particularly useful test when you consider John Reyonlds succeeded against Eilo Mallocco after the latter called him a "Gay Batchelor", or where his father won against the Sunday Times after the publication of an article entitled "Goodbye Gombeen Man".

DeVore wrote:

3. My main reason for doing boards is to NOT allow our public expression to be curtailed because of what MIGHT be said. Thats a really convenient manner of controlling everyone's ability to get a message out there without ACTUALLY breaching the UN Charter of human rights.

?? I dont follow. If you mean filtering of some description then this is probably more likely to be viewed with distaste. Certainly the US courts have a very negative view of "prior restraint". I dont believe the issue has ever come up here, but I could be wrong.

DeVore wrote:

So where does that leave me? Well lets think of the defining line between Legal and Illegal (read: Defamatory and Non-Actionable) as a real line.
I dont get to know where that line is exactly (I have to use my non legal brain to guess) but I AM told that if I step over it I'll get slapped. Now, pretend you are me. How close to that line do you go?
Do you let people criticises companies? Do you allow political expression?
If you find yourself in charge of a site like this, now pretty much unique in this country for its size and function, do you have a *duty* to walk as close to that line as you feel comfortable? Or do you simply cut anything dodgy?

Firstly:
It is generally accepted companies cannot enjoy the personal rights guaranteed under art. 40.3. In Iarnrod Eireann v. Ireland, Keane J suggested that a company could avail of the personal rights insofar as they related to property, but also accepted many other elements were clearly of no significance to bodies corporate, although he didn't say anything specifically about the right to a good name.

If the constitution recognises that bodies corporate do not have the same right to a good name as an individual, then it is reasonable to argue it is much more difficult to defame them.

I think it is only commonsense to say that the statement "Alfa Romeo make crap cars that rust and breakdown" is less defamatory than to say "Mary sleeps around has STDs and is a trollop"

I don't think it is all that easy to defame a company, and the ECtHR judgment above gives credence to this.

Secondly:
In the US especially political speech is regarded as attracting First Amendment Rights more than random blabbering. This general notion has also been accepted in a few UK cases. In a democracy politicians should normally be regarded as being fair game for unbridled criticism.

Thirdly:
I don't see the need to police boards gestapo style. I can't answer, but maybe someone else could: Can boards avail of the common carrier exemption to defamation...e.g. can it be treated like Eircom when Paddy calls Mary a trollop down the phone.

Lastly:
I am involved in another website where we face similar problems. We host judgments, and some involve sensitive issues which the parties at times do not like being available online (although they on the public record anyway).

We found a practical way to stop solicitors writing was to exclude most of the site from search engines through the robots.txt file.

sh_o

maidhc wrote:

?? I dont follow. If you mean filtering of some description then this is probably more likely to be viewed with distaste.

In fact the intermediary service provider (boards.ie in this case) may loose the ability to rely on the "mere conduit" defence for any content that is transmitted by them.
The defence is only available to them if they "...did not select or modify the information contained in the transmission." [EC (Directive 2000/31) Regulations 2003 (SI. No. 68 of 2003) - Regulation 16]

maidhc

sh_o wrote:

The defence is only available to them if they "...did not select or modify the information contained in the transmission." [EC (Directive 2000/31) Regulations 2003 (SI. No. 68 of 2003) - Regulation 16]

Thats the thing I had in the back of my head in relation to the "Common carrier" issue.

How exactly does it work? Is there any more recent caselaw in relation to the liability of those who host discussion groups along the lines of Cubby v. Compuserve?

DeVore

I said>
3. My main reason for doing boards is to NOT allow our public expression to be curtailed because of what MIGHT be said. Thats a really convenient manner of controlling everyone's ability to get a message out there without ACTUALLY breaching the UN Charter of human rights.

Maidhc said>
?? I dont follow. If you mean filtering of some description then this is probably more likely to be viewed with distaste. Certainly the US courts have a very negative view of "prior restraint". I dont believe the issue has ever come up here, but I could be wrong.


Ok, think about it this way. Why are there so few other forums like Boards out there? Why don't the big boys (who all seem to WANT to pimp their stuff here) have their own big sites? They are afraid of lawsuit.
Eircom couldnt have a big forum like ours for fear that they'd get sued up the jacksie!

Someone arrives here, says something bold which we dont notice and next thing we know we could find ourselves in court. That *may* never happen. It *may* be unlikely to succeed but it IS stopping people offering the Internet as a public platform for expression.

From having spoken to people here, and because of some of the things we have done to head anything like that off (like, being poor!) I feel a lot happier about things now. However I still expect that at some stage the law that holds people like us responsible for what others say, will be replaced with something more up to date or be defeated in court. I'd rather not be the one to have to do that but I believe we should take that chance or the internet will simply become yet another channel-to-market...

DeV.

DeVore

sh_o wrote:

In fact the intermediary service provider (boards.ie in this case) may loose the ability to rely on the "mere conduit" defence for any content that is transmitted by them.
The defence is only available to them if they "...did not select or modify the information contained in the transmission." [EC (Directive 2000/31) Regulations 2003 (SI. No. 68 of 2003) - Regulation 16]

I dont think we "select or modify the information contained in the transmission" ... do we?

DeV.

Victor

DeVore wrote:

I dont think we "select or modify the information contained in the transmission" ... do we?

You can edit and/or delete posts. But I'm not sure if thats the same thing.

sh_o

maidhc wrote:

How exactly does it work? Is there any more recent caselaw in relation to the liability of those who host discussion groups along the lines of Cubby v. Compuserve?

Take a look for Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201 - that case was before the EC Directive was implemented [I think] but was decided largely along the lines that the service provider was put on notice of the defamatory content and chose not to remove it. After making that decision, the court ruled that the service provider could no longer rely on the defence of innocent dissemination.

focusing

A sample process you could go through is:

1. Is it in breach of Boards guidelines? (obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening)
NO? Leave it, go to next step. YES? Edit / delete

2. Has there been a complaint?
NO? Leave it unless you feel uncomfortable about its content. YES? Go to next step.

3. Would the post harm the reputation of the subject?
NO? Leave it. Yes? Go to next step.

4. Is the post true, factual or based on personal experience?
YES? Leave it. NO? Delete or edit down to facts.

What to edit it to?

Complaint: “This post has been deleted due to a complaint.”

Threat of legal action: “This post has been deleted because of a threat of legal action from XYZ Ltd. Readers should be aware that all statements made on this website do not represent the opinions or beliefs of Boards Ltd. Readers contemplating purchasing Z type of product / service should obtain independent expert advice and should note that Boards.ie is not a suitable substitute for such advice. Boards.ie accept no responsibility for the content of posts on these Boards.”

If there’s been a serious libel and they look like they’re serious about suing:

Add in “Boards.ie apologises that an untrue statement was made about XYZ Ltd., a company with an excellent reputation in the field of Z.”

hullaballoo

There's no way boards.ie fits the "mere conduit" description, but as I've said before, there doesn't appear to be a definition withing the EU Directive that does fit boards or other sites like it.

Companies are perhaps harder to defame, but they are millions of times more likely to try to take a case.

I hope I'll have a few minutes later to put together a proper response. I think Hobart is well up on this area of the law.

Sparks

What about nuisance suits and simple threats of legal action used to try to restrict someone from posting something (and yes, I'm speaking from being in the firing line of this kind of thing on more than one occasion).

lostexpectation

has askaboutmoney ever been sued, does it remove stuff to be on the safe, its seems to be the conusmer site in Ireland, ah I see its a 365 hosted :P

Eoin

Unfortunately, it appears that this exact problem happened on the Greystones / Charlesland forum; there was a huge thread about management companies where someone said that they had been a tenant in another complex managed by the same management company, and the level of service was appalling.

Actually, the post could well have been a little less diplomatic and used more derogatory terms, but I have no access to the original thread.

Anyhow, the management company found the thread, took exception to it and it appears that solicitors letters were sent to the person who made the post. How exactly they knew who it was, I am not too sure though.

There doesn't seem to be much you can do if you have a bad experience with a management company; they pretty much have you over the barrel. I reckon for most people, a place like boards is the only place you can vent your feelings. I find it a shame that I have had to edit people's posts and ask them to be overly (IMO) cautious about what they say about the management companies in our estate.

hullaballoo

If you have a bad experience with a company, there is no problem reporting it on a site like this, or any other site for that matter.

Say, for example, a certain Company R were to agree to install a pressurised central heating system in my house. Say, then, that they install the system under a brand new oak floor, and we turn it on, only to discover that the plumber had neglected to tighten any of the connections, which flooded the entire house and cost us tens of thousands in repairs.

I become irate and sign in to boards and start telling everyone about it. I'm not crossing any legal boundaries that will cause problems for me in the future once I don't start to exaggerate the problem. If I were to say that the entire house had to be knocked down and rebuilt because of their negligence, I might be in trouble, but if I kept it to saying that certain parts of the floor had been damaged, and due to its nature, the entire floor had to be taken up and replaced, I'd be ok.

The serious issues arise when I login without really putting any reasonable thought into my report and start saying, "Company R are all paedophiles and villains and should be locked up and the key thrown away."

Unfortunately, the latter is what tends to occur most often, whereas the bare naked truth is quite rare in these situations.

How do we differentiate, as moderators, what is the truth and what is an exaggeration/fallacy? We can't. Therefore, we have to use the wait and see argument - if no one says anything, we leave well enough alone, but if someone makes a complaint, we must look long and hard at our options.

Personally, I am quick to delete this sort of thing because of the nature of this forum in particular. If someone launches a defamatory attack in here, and I do not jump on it as soon as I see it, then the person against whom the attack has been launched will be well within reason to say, "well, he's the moderator of the Legal Discussion forum, he should have known better".

That said, it is no defence to plead ignorance of your offence. Just like no one can reply to a murder by saying that they did not know it was against the law to kill someone, boards cannot say that it did not know that calling someone a trollop was defamatory.

Ideally, every moderator would have some sort of training in what is and isn't defamation and one or two other legal issues, but common sense is enough to dictate how fora are moderated for the time being.

jhegarty

hullaballoo wrote:

If you have a bad experience with a company, there is no problem reporting it on a site like this, or any other site for that matter.

Say, for example, a certain Company R were to agree to install a pressurised central heating system in my house. Say, then, that they install the system under a brand new oak floor, and we turn it on, only to discover that the plumber had neglected to tighten any of the connections, which flooded the entire house and cost us tens of thousands in repairs.

I become irate and sign in to boards and start telling everyone about it. I'm not crossing any legal boundaries that will cause problems for me in the future once I don't start to exaggerate the problem. If I were to say that the entire house had to be knocked down and rebuilt because of their negligence, I might be in trouble, but if I kept it to saying that certain parts of the floor had been damaged, and due to its nature, the entire floor had to be taken up and replaced, I'd be ok.

but how does the mod know you really have had your floor problems and are not just the owner of Company Y trying to blacken the name of Company R...

Moriarty

.. an issue that has cropped up surprisingly often on the likes of the broadband forum.

Eoin

Does the "no advertising" rule on boards extend to companies being able to defend any negative comments they may see here?

Gobán Saor

hullaballoo wrote:

What's "clearly libellous material"?

Apparently, Professor McMahon (as he then was) used to say in his lectures that to call a woman a "hoor" was undoubtedly defamatory, but to call a man a "hoor's master" was not, it being more akin to a compliment in certain parts of the country:D

maidhc

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Apparently, Professor McMahon (as he then was)

He still is no? I think he an adjunct professor now in UCC as well as doing his judicial duties.

Gobán Saor

maidhc wrote:

He still is no? I think he an adjunct professor now in UCC as well as doing his judicial duties.

Yes indeed, I think you're right.

Victor

Can one defame any of the following?

Estate agents
Phone companies
Used car salesmen
Apartment building management companies

focusing

I'd say a jury might tell them to go shove their claim!!

A judge sitting alone in the Circuit Court might recognise some sort of reputation for them.

That was essentially the decision of the jury in Beverley Cooper-Flynn's case if I remember correctly. Jury: RTE told lies about you in a way that would harm one's reputation, but you have no reputation worth protecting when it comes to these sorts of issues, so no libel!

Interesting point, in some cases you could show either that the post was true or was CAPABLE of being true, and as such there was no damage to reputation.

Our man in Havana

Victor wrote:

Can one defame any of the following?

Estate agents
Phone companies
Used car salesmen
Apartment building management companies

Add solictors to that list.

The_Minister

If I defamed a company on boards, would me or boards feel the pain?

focusing

Both. Like a writer in a magazine, both the writer and the magazine itself (and the editor, publisher, etc.) would be liable.

Problem is that since you're anonymous on boards, the only person worth suing is Boards Ltd, who thankfully are in the stronger legal position of the two.

RainyDay

lostexpectation wrote:

has askaboutmoney ever been sued, does it remove stuff to be on the safe, its seems to be the conusmer site in Ireland, ah I see its a 365 hosted :P

I don't take seriously complaints about 'restrictions of free speech'. Moderation of a thread doesn't restrict anyone's right to free speech. If you don't like the moderation, set up your own site & you can post away at your hearts content. Don't expect someone else to take responsibility for your posts.

There is also a certain unfairness about allowing anonymous posters to take potshots at (for example) companies or service providers. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that anyone who wants to make allegations to do so publically, with their real name/address. I know this would be very difficult to enforce.

Our man in Havana

Of course Boards.ie AAM or any board can be sued for their contributors posts. The only defence is strict moderation of posts and quick removal of the offending posts.

dermot_sheehan

focusing wrote:

I'd say a jury might tell them to go shove their claim!!

A judge sitting alone in the Circuit Court might recognise some sort of reputation for them.

That was essentially the decision of the jury in Beverley Cooper-Flynn's case if I remember correctly. Jury: RTE told lies about you in a way that would harm one's reputation, but you have no reputation worth protecting when it comes to these sorts of issues, so no libel!

Interesting point, in some cases you could show either that the post was true or was CAPABLE of being true, and as such there was no damage to reputation.

Circuit court defamation actions (where the amount claimed is under €38,000) are also heard by a jury.