Libel, Defamation - Addition to the Charter - just a suggestion.

Mrs_Doyle

Hi,

I studied Media Law in college, and I have a few sample case studies, and also some abbreviated legislation, that could be placed in a sticky in the charter.
A lot of the posters do not seem to understand what constitutes a libelous statement, and perhaps if it was made obligatory for them to read said case studies, and the issue of Liability was explained in a clear and concise manner, there would be no excuse for a user to post in a libelous fashion.

It might be an idea to make clear to the Boards community that should they post in a libelous manner, that they will receive a site ban, or a forum ban etc.

What do you think?

Amz

While maybe a good idea in theory, I think it would just be another thing for users to ignore. As we've seen with charters a lot of people only read them after they've been banned for breaches of them.

I also think case studies etc. might go over the heads of some of the users, particularly the younger ones.

Beruthiel

Amz wrote:

As we've seen with charters a lot of people only read them after they've been banned for breaches of them.

Ain't that the truth.

Raphael

So all posters should be obliged to read case studies before posting? That's a bit ridiculous, if you ask me. The point of a charter is to lay down a few, brief rules. And it's apparent that people don't really read them. More of them won;t bother with the case studies, I know I wouldn't.

Mrs_Doyle

Perhaps a temporary ban is the best way to go, it would be enough of a shock to make the poster read the charter carefully, without removing them from the community entirely, before giving them them the opportunity to realise the error of their ways.

Raphael

<Removed due to rudeness>

Amz

You don't have to be rude about it. She made a suggestion, if you don't like it you don't have to comment.

I don't know why there's always a line that forms in these threads to poke fun at, or abuse posters. Some users always have to stick their oar in when really they'd be far better off doing something constructive.

scojones

Amz wrote:

You don't have to be rude about it. She made a suggestion, if you don't like it you don't have to comment.

I don't know why there's always a line that forms in these threads to poke fun at, or abuse posters. Some users always have to stick their oar in when really they'd be far better off doing something constructive.

The problem is, to them sticking their oar in is being constructive.

Sarky

Amz wrote:

While maybe a good idea in theory, I think it would just be another thing for users to ignore. As we've seen with charters a lot of people only read them after they've been banned for breaches of them.

That's their own fault, really. I think it might be worth some consideration at least. Is libel covered in charters right now? It might be an idea to put it in there, so Boards can be seen to have done what it can. Then again, maybe I'm talking crazy talk. My right eye has certainly been twitching for the last solid month...

nuttz

Amz wrote:

While maybe a good idea in theory, I think it would just be another thing for users to ignore. As we've seen with charters a lot of people only read them after they've been banned for breaches of them.

I also think case studies etc. might go over the heads of some of the users, particularly the younger ones.

I think this applies to some forums more than others, the sticky in the politics forum could do with an explanation of Libel / Defamation. There was a thread removed from there earlier this week for this reason.

Jonny Arson

IMO Impossible to implement, even flicking around a few forums tonight I've seen half a dozen posts that could be labelled as potentially libelous, jeez one post I made tonight could be seen as libelous if the company had the same totalitarian attitude as....... lets say a famous 3 worded company who we all know of. In other words, libel laws are hazy to say the least and to put posters through a crashcourse would be a bit much.

hullaballoo

I have to say I agree with the principle of what Mrs_Doyle is saying, but I don't think the answer lies in putting someting in the charter which many users don't read. Even if they do read it, if we update it now, less people are likely to read the updated version.

What is important is trying to establish some way of letting people know that certain things are a bit dodgy to say in public. Most people get away with saying what they like to their mates, and then take that on here. You don't have to completely censor yourself, it's just a matter of avoiding irrational embellishment and that.

hullaballoo

hullaballoo wrote:

I have to say I agree with the principle of what Mrs_Doyle is saying, but I don't think the answer lies in putting someting in the charter which many users don't read. Even if they do read it, if we update it now, less people are likely to read the updated version.

Yes, but it might educate some moderators as to what it all means, which might save some headaches for boards in the future.

nuttz

Myth wrote:

Yes, but it might educate some moderators as to what it all means, which might save some headaches for boards in the future.

I agree, there is no harm in having it as a guideline in the sticky at least. It can only help prevent legal actions against the people running this site in future.

Raphael

Amz wrote:

You don't have to be rude about it. She made a suggestion, if you don't like it you don't have to comment.

I don't know why there's always a line that forms in these threads to poke fun at, or abuse posters. Some users always have to stick their oar in when really they'd be far better off doing something constructive.

Sorry. Editing. I saw 4 red stars and thought,"someone who's been around the block a bit." Hadn't realised the OP's been around less than a month

stevenmu

Can libel/defamation be defined well/simply enough that it can be added to charters in such a way that users can be expected to follow it ? If so, then I'd be completely in favour of this suggestion. I do have my doubts though considering it often requires two teams of lawyers and a judge (at least) to determine what is actually libellous/defamatory and what is not. Even still, some rough guidelines would be better than nothing.

As a practical matter, if libel/defamation type clauses are to be added to charters I would suggest that it not nessecarily be a bannable offense. I would suggest that the best course of action would be to delete the post and then pm the user and advise them why the post was deleted and if appropriate suggest a more acceptable wording of their post.

One potential complication may be: should each individual post be considered in it's own right, or should the thread in general be taken into account. For example on one forum there tends to be a lot of posts along the lines of "Company X sucks great big donkey balls, I bought one of their products and it was ...", to which there tends to be a lot of replies along the lines of "Well Company X is actually great if you want A or B or C, but if you're actually looking for D then you're better off going with Option Y". Company X comes off looking quite good (they're being recommended for all the market segments they aim at). Is the first post still libellous/defamatory or should it be left stand as an opinion ?

Victor

Isn't this a little like a contract saying "the contractor shall obey the law", they is already an obligation to not defame people, do we need to add another.

Mrs_Doyle

It might be handy to post a short case study in the charter for someone who posts something bordering on a libelous statement.
They could be directed toward the charter, and just familiarize themselves with the basics.
I don't expect for people to study the in's and out's of the law in any great detail, but it would definitely be a good thing if they got the general jist of it.

Kiera

Ok this might be a really stupid question BUT could the Admins not send a mail to everyone, with what Mrs Doyle is talking about? That way no one can they didn’t know. *waits to be told she’s away with the fairies*

Nevyn

I think saying case studies in muddying the water.
Another way of putting it is a clear example of what is libel for people to read and hopefully understand.

BrianCalgary

This is a great board where we can chat and discuss. Friendly banter begins to erupt as we get to one another. A lawyer somewhere could see it as libel, the participants see it as banter.

KEEP THE LAWYERS AWAY.

I see your heart Mrs. Doyle. I appreciate it.

ecksor

As usual if posters behave in a civil and honest manner than problems should be avoided and this is what we try to encourage our users to do.

At any rate, it's not a good time to get into the ins and outs of such subjects. Thread closed.