Do "banned" posters have any rights to edit/delete posts?

Red Sleeping Beauty

Hi, I'm just wondering that if or when a poster is banned from a forum do they have any rights regarding information that forum has on you and more importantly about your posts. Say someone has been posting on a forum for quite some time and has a few thousand posts but then is banned, has he/she any right to request that his posts are removed from the site?

For instance , someone says something controversial or perhaps that could give way to legal action or even just posts made in bad judgement (perhaps made while drunk or in a different frame of mind), then later goes back and edits or deletes their post(s).. While still an active member of the forum you have the ability to edit/delete them posts but when you are banned of course then that privelage is taken away.

I know that one of the admins on boards.ie has often said that "your words are your own", but what if later you have a change of opinion and and feel that what you posted previously doesn't relate to you or shows you in a bad light?
Should forums provide a facility whereby banned users can still access their information i.e. to edit/delete posts?

johnnyskeleton

Interesting question, and I take it that it is hypothetical since you clearly are not currently sitebanned.

I would imagine the first port of call is the terms and conditions of use of the site, and there may be provisions there governing the removal of posts.

The next option would be to simply ask the admins or mods to remove your posts manually.

Finally, I suppose a request could be made under the Data Protection Act to have your personal data (i.e. your posts) removed from the server, although this is a somewhat vague and uncertain point so it would be difficult to enforce in practice.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Nah, it's nothing to do with Boards.ie. I rarely even use this forum but I think I remember hearing or reading something about someone here who was banned and had the word "banned" under their username and then had a letter sent to the site admins referncing the data protection act with regards his name being slandered. I might have got my facts mixed up but it's a debate I've not seen on forums really.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Interesting question, and I take it that it is hypothetical since you clearly are not currently sitebanned.

I would imagine the first port of call is the terms and conditions of use of the site, and there may be provisions there governing the removal of posts.

The next option would be to simply ask the admins or mods to remove your posts manually.

Finally, I suppose a request could be made under the Data Protection Act to have your personal data (i.e. your posts) removed from the server, although this is a somewhat vague and uncertain point so it would be difficult to enforce in practice.

Red Sleeping Beauty

bump , any more comment on this ?

Tom Young

Well yes. Couple of problems with it:

1. Unless the user is using their own name, it would be problematic to ground a complaint. Save for discovery principles;

2. Would a sane person be bothered?;

3. Banning requires some sort of misdemeanor, moderators won't ban unless there are good grounds; and

4. A banned alias is merely that. Off a user can go and make up a new alias. The thing is most moderators know writing and posting styles and can get IP addresses to track 'baiters' and offenders!

Tom

seamus

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Nah, it's nothing to do with Boards.ie. I rarely even use this forum but I think I remember hearing or reading something about someone here who was banned and had the word "banned" under their username and then had a letter sent to the site admins referncing the data protection act with regards his name being slandered. I might have got my facts mixed up but it's a debate I've not seen on forums really.

Basically, no is the answer. The post is offered by the poster for publishing, at which point it becomes property of the site, to publish and edit as they wish. There have often been comparisons made between posts and "letters to the editor", where you cannot ask the publisher to "unpublish" a letter, nor can you insist that it is published unedited.

Personal data under the DPA, as best I understand it, only applies to protected information - personal information which does not fall into the public domain. Since posts are made with the understanding that they will appear in the public domain, once they have been put into the public domain, they cannot be removed again.

I will say that the above is largely untested, but most people (including the DP commissioner) seem to toe that particular line.

"your words are your own" is normally used in regards to the consequences of those words and isn't specifically referring to ownership. Even if a post is changed later on, you still can't "unsay" what you've said, and a number of people will have read the post in it's original form.

Because it's a text format, there's an expectation that if you change your post, then everything is OK. But it's not. Much like in any public scenario, if someone has heard or read your original words, you can't take that back, even if you do change your mind afterwards.

Tom Young

I posted this before, its worth reading in support of Seamus view: http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/2clix/soc.pdf

...on re-reading my own, perhaps I was being a little too pragmatic.

I'd agree with the status of untested, save for the Facebook judgment in the UK: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23520507-details/Businessman+awarded+22,000+in+landmark+libel+ruling+over+malicious+fake+Facebook+profile/article.do

...interestingly, when this was posted on my Facebook wall, it vanished - without trace!

Tom

Tom Young

PS: The Tort of Injurious falsehood in the context of Whirlpool would be interesting. As also mentioned before there is a fundamental issue with libel and the test for it under statute, its not really a corporate test.

Tom

pirelli

seamus wrote: »

Basically, no is the answer. The post is offered by the poster for publishing, at which point it becomes property of the site, to publish and edit as they wish. There have often been comparisons made between posts and "letters to the editor", where you cannot ask the publisher to "unpublish" a letter, nor can you insist that it is published unedited.

Personal data under the DPA, as best I understand it, only applies to protected information - personal information which does not fall into the public domain. Since posts are made with the understanding that they will appear in the public domain, once they have been put into the public domain, they cannot be removed again.

I will say that the above is largely untested, but most people (including the DP commissioner) seem to toe that particular line.

"your words are your own" is normally used in regards to the consequences of those words and isn't specifically referring to ownership. Even if a post is changed later on, you still can't "unsay" what you've said, and a number of people will have read the post in it's original form.

Because it's a text format, there's an expectation that if you change your post, then everything is OK. But it's not. Much like in any public scenario, if someone has heard or read your original words, you can't take that back, even if you do change your mind afterwards.

Tom Young wrote: »

I posted this before, its worth reading in support of Seamus view: http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/2clix/soc.pdf

...on re-reading my own, perhaps I was being a little too pragmatic.

I'd agree with the status of untested, save for the Facebook judgment in the UK: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23520507-details/Businessman+awarded+22,000+in+landmark+libel+ruling+over+malicious+fake+Facebook+profile/article.do

...interestingly, when this was posted on my Facebook wall, it vanished - without trace!

Tom

It was partly tested, the data commisioner wrote to boards.ie and advised them that they had to have certain measures in place, which they didn't and the poster that brought the issue to light had his posts amended.

So,

boards.ie = zero
Data Commisioner = 1

That's the situation at the mo and they will have boards.ie on their records for that infraction, so as far as paving the way in ireland, the data commision are winning.

seamus

pirelli wrote: »

It was partly tested, the data commisioner wrote to boards.ie and advised them that they had to have certain measures in place, which they didn't and the poster that brought the issue to light had his posts amended.

It was actually slightly different than that. The poster in question had no right to have his posts changed or deleted and the commissioner didn't rule on that at all.

In that case (afair), the ex-poster was concerned that the word "banned" was appearing under his nick, despite having not been banned (he just asked to leave) and the data commissioner was also concerned that some personal data could link the user and his posts - specifically his IP addresses and email address.

The response from boards (which satisfied the commissioner) was to remove the link to the user's profile and any IP information from beside the posts. A placeholder copy of the user's former nick was instead placed beside the posts. The content of none of the posts was in any way altered.

The primary reason that the commissioner was concerned was because boards had no privacy policy detailing what happens when a person wants to leave. This policy is now in place, and in future boards.ie will not be required to delete or edit anyone's posts, nor remove their name from it.

So it's partially tested in so far as, "If you don't tell people how to 'quit', then you're leaving yourself open".

IT Loser

One way I would look at it is like this: suppose you have a brick wall, and some dude writes something on it without your permission.

Obviously, you have the right to eradicate it.

However, if "Banksy" comes to your wall, and writes "Freedom For All" and you edit it till it says "All Jews Must Die" and leave his signature in place....surely you are not allowed to get away with such a defmatory and slanderous editing, which exposes the author to serious charges.

Similarly, if you offer your wall for graffiti and take umbrage at a comment, you are free to remove it. But you can't alter it to convey a message of greater offence than the one originally posted.

Capricious editing which exposes the author to legal consequences is unfair and wrong. Capricious editing which misrepresents the authors sentiments is wrong. The capricious refusal to remove an unedited offensive comment for which the authur is now remorseful is also wrong. The mods/admins may not act in a fashion which exposes the author to a degree of criminal liability or social stigma which the comments would not, unedited, attract. Nor may they leave in place a genuinely offensive or slanderous comment which the author seeks to remove.

seamus

IT Loser wrote: »

Capricious editing which exposes the author to legal consequences is unfair and wrong. Capricious editing which misrepresents the authors sentiments is wrong. The capricious refusal to remove an unedited offensive comment for which the authur is now remorseful is also wrong. The mods/admins may not act in a fashion which exposes the author to a degree of criminal liability or social stigma which the comments would not, unedited, attract. Nor may they leave in place a genuinely offensive or slanderous comment which the author seeks to remove.

Is that written in law though?

pirelli

Where has Johnny Skeleton's thread gone. Is the removal of that thread an establishment of the standards we will now come to expect from boards.ie.
If i want my thread deleted will you comply also.

seamus

johnnyskeleton did not request his thread be removed. So you can't either

pirelli

Do you mind me asking where it is then.

Tom Young

I took it down on Friday night. Do you want it back? Literallly I was housekeeping.

dats_right

Strange 'housekeeping' when so many threads that have been locked or closed after a couple of posts remain on the forum. I would like to see the Johnnyskeleton thread and any others that were removed on Friday re-instated.

Maximilian

dats_right wrote: »

Strange 'housekeeping' when so many threads that have been locked or closed after a couple of posts remain on the forum. I would like to see the Johnnyskeleton thread and any others that were removed on Friday re-instated.

It's not about what you would like I'm afraid. Unfortunately, a lot of threads have to be locked around here and of late there has also been a lot of well, venom I suppose you could call it. All those locked threads makes the place look a little intimidating and harsh. We genuinely want to encourage people to post here and grow interest in the forum.

The Mods are discussing how best to deal with it at the moment but you your view is noted.

dats_right

Maximilian wrote: »

The Mods are discussing how best to deal with it at the moment but you your view is noted.

It appears that the mods aren't entirely singing from the same hymm sheet. Nonetheless, I fully understand your predicament, but I think you and your fellow mods should for the most part leave whole threads be, save where intervention is absolutely necessary, which isn't the case in this instance. Couldn't particularly venomous posts be deleted rather than full threads?

Robust and frank exchanges of views shouldn't be discouraged or confused with 'venom', especially when the topics being debated have real implications for and effects on many of the users of this Forum. I share your desire to grow interest in the forum, but I doubt whether that can be achieved in circumstances where the mods are too quick to filter content for their own reasons. This is an open forum and the mods should as much as possible adopt a laissez-faire approach to moderating threads and posts. Intervention and editing content should and must be a last resort if this forum is to thrive.

Maximilian

Again, I take your point but this is not a matter for discussion on this thread. This is under discussion by the Mods at the moment including the view you just expressed.

Btw - I accidentally clicked on edit post instead of reply, which is why your above post indicated I edited it. Oops.

Daithi McGee

seamus wrote: »

It was actually slightly different than that. The poster in question had no right to have his posts changed or deleted and the commissioner didn't rule on that at all.

In that case (afair), the ex-poster was concerned that the word "banned" was appearing under his nick, despite having not been banned (he just asked to leave) and the data commissioner was also concerned that some personal data could link the user and his posts - specifically his IP addresses and email address.

The response from boards (which satisfied the commissioner) was to remove the link to the user's profile and any IP information from beside the posts. A placeholder copy of the user's former nick was instead placed beside the posts. The content of none of the posts was in any way altered.

The primary reason that the commissioner was concerned was because boards had no privacy policy detailing what happens when a person wants to leave. This policy is now in place, and in future boards.ie will not be required to delete or edit anyone's posts, nor remove their name from it.

So it's partially tested in so far as, "If you don't tell people how to 'quit', then you're leaving yourself open".

If you signed up before that policy was in place and had posted under the original non policy remit, what happens then? Can posters have their data removed like the other guys did?

seamus

Now there's a question. I don't think so. To the best of my knowledge, the details were removed mostly in a "good faith" sort of way to please the commissioner. I could be wrong though.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Is it possible to delete a user and their posts from a forum like this one ? i.e. a Vbulletin style forum ? Just wondering if it is possible ? If so and someone who'd been banned or even just wanted to delete his/her account and not use the forum anymore, then would it be of much bother to the mods to do that ?