Irish Times Article

Thomas_S_Hunterson

boards.ie got a reasonably sympathetic mention in the times today. (I realise this is not feedback, but I thought it was a good place to put it)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2008/0815/1218477629540.html

There's a new bit of case law mentioned from the UK which could prove valuable with large companies throwing their weight arount with regard to libel.

dr.bollocko

He's just pimping his dog board!
Nice to see though, that the swing of free speech is coming our way.

monkeyfudge

Slanging matches?

regi

dr.bollocko wrote: »

He's just pimping his dog board!

Pretty sure that Karlin's a she :-)

dr.bollocko

regi wrote: »

Pretty sure that Karlin's a she :-)

Oops.
/scuttles off.

Overheal

Karlin Killington wrote:

ANYONE WHO HAS ever spent any time on an internet discussion board will know that robust exchanges are the norm.

Even on the most innocuous topics – knitting, gardening, celebrity hairstyles, or in the case of my own discussion board, a dog breed – slanging matches can appear out of nowhere as one person expresses a strong view that others take exception to.

And just as with e-mail, text messages or any brief written form in which it is difficult to convey an intended emotion, people occasionally take posts the wrong way, igniting a battle of words between board members.

For discussion board administrators and moderators, heated verbal exchanges – sometimes known as flame wars – are a constant worry in the legal grey zone of the internet.

Theoretically, any public post, be it on a discussion board like Boards.ie, on messaging software, on a blog or in blog post comments sections, or on a website, is considered to be “published” once it is posted and hence subject to the same laws of libel, slander and defamation as an article in a newspaper.

As with a newspaper, the writer, editor and the owner – or in this case, the board poster, moderator and admin – could be taken to court.

For board admins like me, this is a constant headache. On my dog board, Cavaliertalk.com, I ban discussions on breeders. I was a moderator on a US board where a discussion about a breeder who was clearly a puppy farmer prompted a threat of legal action by the odious woman, and nearly closed down the board. So I know how real a problem like this can be.

So do the proprietors of Boards.ie, which found itself in legal hot water, threatened with court action by concert promoter MCD over negative discussions of the 2006 ****** festival. Boards.ie still has a warning in all board forums that it will not allow any discussion of MCD.

This is despite the fact that Irish defamation law makes room for fair comment, and a defence that what has been said is probably true. But for most of us running boards on tiny advertising income or out of our own pockets, the path of least resistance – banning discussions or pulling them – is easier that going to court, and often the only option.

However, a recent High Court ruling in the UK will provide fresh international case law that should loosen up this worrying operating environment for boards, blogs and chat.

In a case involving posts to a financial discussion board, Mr Justice Eady ruled that discussion boards are more akin to pub chats, not a published print medium, and therefore robust exchanges are more akin to slander, not libel.

In his judgment, he wrote that posts “are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out. Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or ‘give and take’.”

He added: “When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions. People do not often take a ‘thread’ and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it.”

Why is this important? As barrister, law lecturer, and chairman of Digital Rights Ireland TJ McIntrye explains on his blog ([url]www.tjmcintyre.com):[/url] “Offline, casual conversations . . . benefit from the more relaxed rules of slander, where oral (as opposed to written) communications generally don’t give a person a right to sue for defamation unless they have suffered actual damage as a result.”

So online fisticuffs are – as most internet users intuitively recognise – more in the nature of a minor verbal blow-up than a published letter to the editor or a written article. And thus, thanks to this judgment, the risk for board operators is lowered of people claiming they have been libelled in a board discussion.

One might note that this case was in Britain, and not Ireland. But the realities of internet law are that decisions in one country all greatly influence practice everywhere, because of the international nature of the net.

Or to put it another way, my own board is hosted in Ireland, but my moderators are in Scotland, two US states and Australia, and my board members come from all over the world. Someone from any jurisdiction could issue a challenge in any jurisdiction where the board is read. Running a board will always involve keeping a wary eye on posts. But this judgment helps illuminate the grey murk of online law in a significant way for board minders.

killington@irish-times.ie

Blog: www.techno-culture.com

Good article.

Bob the Builder

(S)He sounds cool.

But not exactly my cup of tea if you're going to be talking about dogs all day long...

This is going to be a brilliant thread. someone's going to discuss what they're not supposed to discuss - get banned for it and start moaning...

kmart6

dr.bollocko wrote: »

He's just pimping his dog board!
Nice to see though, that the swing of free speech is coming our way.

No such thing as free speech around here!

Overheal

now I like the thought of more freedom to speak your mind but at the same time wouldnt it sorta spoil the atmosphere around here a bit? Almost civil at the moment people would start calling eachother jackabytes and whathaveyou for the hell of it and it would get very negative around here (yes, I just watched rob roy, feck off)

dr.bollocko

kmart6 wrote: »

No such thing as free speech around here!

Nah that's fair enough. But if it leads to a legal precedent that means some of the rules about that which shall not be spoken of can be relaxed and we can finally moan to our heart's content about everything, then everyone is a little happier.

Earthhorse

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Slanging matches?

She's American. Or Canadian. Or something.

nevf wrote: »

This is going to be a brilliant thread. someone's going to discuss what they're not supposed to discuss - get banned for it and start moaning...

Now you listen here. All my dogs are thoroughbreds and kept in the best possible condition. They are fed and walked at least once a week (sometimes more).

That's actually a pretty cool ruling by the judge (who says they are out of touch with the real world?).

UK Judge wrote:

are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out

That's pretty dead on balls accurate.

Cuddlesworth

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Nah that's fair enough. But if it leads to a legal precedent that means some of the rules about that which shall not be spoken of can be relaxed and we can finally moan to our heart's content about everything, then everyone is a little happier.

Why provide them with free advertising? Boards.ie would be better off maintaining their current policy.

pH

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Why provide them with free advertising? Boards.ie would be better off maintaining their current policy.

Yea, but maybe what I really think of Irish Psychics Live could be reinstated
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51638525&postcount=10

seamus

It's a good sign. As she points out, it doesn't necessarily mean that the same stance would be taken here, but precedents in US and UK courts are often relevant/considered in Irish courts.

The admins have always said that they would be delighted if they could definitively tell people, "You are liable to be sued for what you post, so knock yourself out but don't come crying to us".

parasite

why does she think a uk court ruling would have an effect, when america, which has a much larger influence on the net, already has much looser libel laws ?

Earthhorse

parasite wrote: »

why does she think a uk court ruling would have an effect, when america, which has a much larger influence on the net, already has much looser libel laws ?

Probably because Irish law is more likely to mirror UK law than it is US law.

mike65

Shouldn't that quoted article be edited to remove mentions of You Know Who?

Mike.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

parasite wrote: »

why does she think a uk court ruling would have an effect, when america, which has a much larger influence on the net, already has much looser libel laws ?

Irish and UK legal systems are extremely similar. The precedent may well carry over. They have done in the past.

kaimera

parasite wrote: »

why does she think a uk court ruling would have an effect, when america, which has a much larger influence on the net, already has much looser libel laws ?

800 years...NEVAR forget etc etc

parasite

nah, I wasn't going for the 800 years angle at all

Maximilian

It's a very interesting judgement but it doesn't change a thing as far as Boards goes. This issue needs specific legislation. It's just too much of a grey area at the moment.

RuailleBuaille

deleted just in case!

Overheal

They could really capitalise in the edu forums. Everytime a LC grad asks about a room people tell them to just go to dabs