Restriction on "Real" Advice [Legal Discussion forum - mod]

drkpower

Howdy

This one might be for the moderators predominantly....

I've read the "charter" and have reviewed some of the "closed" threads (on this and other forums - ie. the medicine one) and am very interested in the very strict (although often inconsistent) approach to any advice that may relate to what may be called a "real" situation. In fact, the "posts that will be snipped" thread on this forum says that posts asking for hypothetical advice is allowed but those asking for advice for "real-life" situations are not.

I assume that the caution is on the basis of a possibility of an action for negligent misstatement (as obviously there is no contractual relationship present). I have a number of questions on this:

1. Is this not entirely impractical? Negligent misstatement involves someone relying, to their detriment, on information from someone professing to have a specialist skill. Any forum discussing legal (or medical issues) is almost invariably going to contain "information" that someone could rely on to their detriment. The hypothetical/real distinction made by the moderator (as mentioned above) surely has no real meaning. If Boards.ie genuinely believes that someone could invoke this tort against them, surely a legal or medical discussion forum should simply not exist.

2. Given the number and variety of forums out there (i have seen skiing forums with the most detailed advice/information being given in respect of skiing injuries) and the huge amount of discussions/advice/information therein, does Boards.ie really think that a case of this nature could be succesfully be taken.

Its an intersting area and i would be intersted in the views of the moderators (and others) on this issue.

Cheers

johnnyskeleton

I think it's highly unlikely that boards could be sued for negligent advice given out in this forum, mainly because of the disclaimers given. But that's neither here nor there.

Another forum in the Rec channel, has regular meet ups, but if you're new to the meet ups you have to bring a can of condensed milk with you. Why do you have to do this? Who knows? The point is that it's their forum, they can make whatever rules they like. You do not pay to use their forum, they are under no obligation to let you use their forum. If they want to make a rule that every post must begin with "Simon says...." then they can do so too.

They have decided that this is a forum for legal discussion. If you think there should be a forum for legal advice, you can make a forum request here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=461

If you want to view/post in an online forum where they DO give out legal advice, post here:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/forumdisplay.php?f=40

drkpower

Johnny, thanks, but that contribution does not address in any substantive way the points i am making.

My point is that legal discussion will in a vey large amount of cases amount to legal information/advice which is what, i presume, the moderators are fearful of. In that context, if they genuinely believe they are at legal risk, they should get rid of any forum that addresses these topics which, of course, would be totally impractical.

BTW,the presnece of disclaimers in this context, technically, would not prevent someone from suing.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

Johnny, thanks, but that contribution does not address in any substantive way the points i am making.

My point is that legal discussion will in a vey large amount of cases amount to legal information/advice which is what, i presume, the moderators are fearful of. In that context, if they genuinely believe they are at legal risk, they should get rid of any forum that addresses these topics which, of course, would be totally impractical.

If you want to read some of the moderators views, look at this thread or do a search for some of the other instances in which they have been asked the same question:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055254183&highlight=legal+advice

I don't really get your point. As I say, notwithstanding that it is unlikely boards.ie would be legally liable, the moderators don't want to give legal advice. They don't want it. They want to discuss legal topics. So if someone has a hypothetical scenario, they are prepared to discuss it, if they are looking for advice, they will not allow it to be discussed.

If you're saying that they should get rid of the forum in case some random lurker sees something posted on the site, decides it is legal advice and acts on it to their detriment, that's up to them, but they presumably have considered this and decided that it's not worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They may well think that there is no proximity between lurkers and posters.

drkpower wrote: »

BTW,the presnece of disclaimers in this context, technically, would not prevent someone from suing.

Nothing could stop people taking suit, but disclaimers are sufficient to prevent liability arising - Caparo I think.

elgransenor

I don't want to drag this off topic here and I don't think I am in asking what would be the situation re an individual website offering legal and or other advice in terms of potential liability re negligence?

Could any potential liability be negatived by a strongly worded disclaimer?

hullaballoo

Ironically, this thread isn't suitable for this forum either, so I'm moving it to Feedback.

It's funny that it's taken so long for us to get the message across that this forum is not for legal advice and then, once we get the point across, it gives rise to other issues.

The question here, OP, is why we chose not to allow legal advice to be given/requested. The answer is that the forum is simply for abstract legal discussion intended to be useful for lawyers and non-lawyers who have an actual interest in the subject-matter.

To be honest, there was a worry when the forum was eventually approved that boards could be sued. The owners of the site had been advised to stay away from offering a forum with 'legal' or 'law' in the title. However, I went to great lengths to convince the owners that it would be ok to have a forum for abstract discussion and any legal advice would be moderated out of the forum.

Since then, there have been a few changes: I've warmed to the idea that people should not only be able to use the forum for abstract discussion, but it should also be used to inform people as to their legitimate rights in various circumstances. Now, threads that start out with 'up in court tomorrow...what to do!!????1' are still likely to be locked because that's just silly. However, if someone has had a run-in with some commercial entity as a consumer, I would in no way be adverse to giving that person a little bit of helpful advice as to his rights.

Let's just say the forum is about the appropriate dissemination of valid information and for the purposes of stimulating healthy debate, inasmuch as we can provide that.

drkpower

hullaballú wrote: »

Ironically, this thread isn't suitable for this forum either, so I'm moving it to Feedback.

It's funny that it's taken so long for us to get the message across that this forum is not for legal advice and then, once we get the point across, it gives rise to other issues.

The question here, OP, is why we chose not to allow legal advice to be given/requested. The answer is that the forum is simply for abstract legal discussion intended to be useful for lawyers and non-lawyers who have an actual interest in the subject-matter.

To be honest, there was a worry when the forum was eventually approved that boards could be sued. The owners of the site had been advised to stay away from offering a forum with 'legal' or 'law' in the title. However, I went to great lengths to convince the owners that it would be ok to have a forum for abstract discussion and any legal advice would be moderated out of the forum.

Since then, there have been a few changes: I've warmed to the idea that people should not only be able to use the forum for abstract discussion, but it should also be used to inform people as to their legitimate rights in various circumstances. Now, threads that start out with 'up in court tomorrow...what to do!!????1' are still likely to be locked because that's just silly. However, if someone has had a run-in with some commercial entity as a consumer, I would in no way be adverse to giving that person a little bit of helpful advice as to his rights.

Let's just say the forum is about the appropriate dissemination of valid information and for the purposes of stimulating healthy debate, inasmuch as we can provide that.

Thanks for the reply. There is no doubt that a froums such as this one (which presumably does noit have very deep pockets...) is right to reduce its potential legal liability. The point i am making is that the potential liability for negligent general legal information is much the same, at least in theory, as the potential liability for specific legal advice. In that context i wonder about the effectiveness of closing down a post that refers to any specific situation.

drkpower

elgransenor wrote: »

I don't want to drag this off topic here and I don't think I am in asking what would be the situation re an individual website offering legal and or other advice in terms of potential liability re negligence?

Could any potential liability be negatived by a strongly worded disclaimer?

On disclaimers, it would not be an absolute bar to recovery but would certainly help - where a disclaimer is of no value is where the "loss" suffered is personal injury (probably more relevant to medical forums) - a legal disclaimer in relation to loss of this nauture is not enforceable (i think.......).

On the more general point, my understanding is that no case has ever been (succesfully) taken where negligent advice/information has been given in an open internet forum where no legal relationship between the parties has been established (it would be different if you, for instance, consulted an internet doctor). It is possible that liability would arise on the basis of negligent misstatement (see my first post) though. The reasonableness of someone relyong on advice in a forum like this one would be the real stumbling block for any claimant - and also the wider public policy/effect on freedom of expression etc.. issues that would arise.

Victor

drkpower, I really think you should speak to a solicitor on this. :pac:

I think the balance that has been struck on the board is fair - its for discussion, not legal advice. And I think any potential judge would see it similarly.

drkpower

I am one but thanks for the advice!

I think that you are probably correct (re the judge) but this is a very interesting and open area and we will only really know when someone takes a case (which is bound to occur at some stage)

Steve

drkpower, as far as I know, the forum was created to discuss legal issues, interesting points of law and to allow members seek clarification on what would apply in a given hypothetical situation.

If it were to be allowed to be a forum where the (100,000+) boards members could go and seek free advice then it would soon turn into a farce and nobody with any professional legal background would be interested in posting there.

You claim to be a solicitor so you know that any professional legal advice you give is covered by the fact that you have a practising cert and insurance to back you up. I could also post there and claim to have the same qualifications (I don't but I could talk the talk if necessary) and possibly give out poor and misleading advice to the detriment of boards.ie and the recipient who acted on it.

I think the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" should apply here.

drkpower

SteveC wrote: »

drkpower, as far as I know, the forum was created to discuss legal issues, interesting points of law and to allow members seek clarification on what would apply in a given hypothetical situation.

If it were to be allowed to be a forum where the (100,000+) boards members could go and seek free advice then it would soon turn into a farce and nobody with any professional legal background would be interested in posting there.

You claim to be a solicitor so you know that any professional legal advice you give is covered by the fact that you have a practising cert and insurance to back you up. I could also post there and claim to have the same qualifications (I don't but I could talk the talk if necessary) and possibly give out poor and misleading advice to the detriment of boards.ie and the recipient who acted on it.

I think the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" should apply here.

Steve, go back and read what i have posted.

I am trying (in vein, it seems) to make the point that legal "information", even if it is hypothetical, could in theory, if it were incorrect/negligent, result in a claim being taken and therefore the effectiveness of closing down threads which refer to a "real" situation while keeping open those which are "hypothetical" may not be of much benefit.

For the record, I think the Boards is doing a great job and i am merely raising the issue as an discussion on an interesting (to me anyway!!) legal issue........ exactly the reason why this forum was set up, i think you said.......

Steve

drkpower wrote: »

Steve, go back and read what i have posted.

I am trying (in vein, it seems) to make the point that legal "information", even if it is hypothetical, could in theory, if it were incorrect/negligent, result in a claim being taken and therefore the effectiveness of closing down threads which refer to a "real" situation while keeping open those which are "hypothetical" may not be of much benefit.

For the record, I think the Boards is doing a great job and i am merely raising the issue as an discussion on an interesting (to me anyway!!) legal issue........ exactly the reason why this forum was set up, i think you said.......

I read and understand what you posted, I was just adding my take on the raison d'etre of the legal discussion forum.
The difference I see is that in hypothetical situations, no actual advice is being given - replies are just comments and discussion on an imaginary situation.
I don't claim to know what the legal implications of this are but it would seem to me that the difference between someone in a bar near Blackhall saying "if Johnny was knocked down by a bus on a pedestrian crossing, what legislation would apply?" and someone named Johnny walking into your office and saying "I was knocked down by a bus on a pedestrian crossing, who can I sue?" would be clear and distinct.

I don't think that in the first instance the site could be held liable for anything wheras if actual advice was given in the second instance then maybe action could be taken.

I don't claim to be an expert on this, I just have a passing interest in legal matters. I'd ask my solicitor btw but she's gone to bed..:D

Sully

I like the Legal Discussion forum. Its handy to discuss various legal issues or talk about minor legal things. Balance is given rather then a no-no on even hypotehetical advise. I guess another reason not to give advise is that your really better of going to a solicitor anyway and discuss it face to face rather then sniplets and getting confused.

I see what you are saying tho. Not knowing the laws, I cant comment really.

Medical Forum wise is different and should be a no-no because you cant be diagnosed online whats wrong with you!

tallaght01

Hi drkpower.

I know your post is mostly about the legal forum, but you mentioned the medicine forum, so I'll just outline how we tend to run things there.

DrIndy and I tend to be pretty strict. We're not actually as strict as I'd like to be. In my ideal world, anything that had the word "me" in it would be closed :P

I think any questions about a person's own medical situation has no place on that forum. I very very rarely interfere with conversations between adults on the forum. Really, the only time I ever intervene is when someone is looking for medical advice. That is the reason for virtually all thread closures/deletions.

I have often closed threads when someone is asking a general question, but I feel they're fishing for info that they can use themselves.

I guess all we can do is apply common sense. DrIndy an I are both experienced doctors, and we will close anything where we think there's any potential for danger. I sometimes delete threads where someone has replied with information that i think could be detrimental to people reading that thread in the future. There are other threads that are pretty harmless by any stretch of the imaginations that I just leave alone (recent one about some kind of alternative medicine oil and it's use in psoriasis for example).

To address your point about legal action. I have to say that my first priority is to protect the users from dodgy information, as opposed to protecting boards from legal action. I don't have the legal knowledge that you do, so i don't know much about that side of things.

But I guess if we try to keep people safe, then they're pretty unlikely to get away with sueing us :P

Also, if you have strong feelings on this issue, feel free to comment on the biology+medicine feedback thread that we have stickied on the forum. I'm always keen to hear users' views on these kinds of issues, because we're not always consistent, in fairness :P

drkpower

Thanks Tallaght01, very helpful input.

To be honest, this whole area is so new that, legally, its an area that could go anywhere. We would all hope that open forums with laudable aspirations (like the Boards) would never be liable for something going wrong unless you guys really messed up!!

My own area is medical law (former doctor, now a lawyer....dont ask...!) and there has been a lot of academic discussion lately about whether a doctor could be liable for negligent advice given on a forum where there is no traditional doctor-patient relationship between the parties. Its a bit of a "nerdy" academic discussion for the moment but, hey, i like nerdy academic discussion!!

Time Magazine

drkpower wrote: »

there has been a lot of academic discussion lately about whether a doctor could be liable for negligent advice given on a forum where there is no traditional doctor-patient relationship between the parties. Its a bit of a "nerdy" academic discussion for the moment but, hey, i like nerdy academic discussion!!

I think you just found yourself a good topic for the Legal Discussion forum :pac:

Victor

tallaght01 wrote: »

But I guess if we try to keep people safe, then they're pretty unlikely to get away with sueing us :P

Um, yes, there are two sides - keep them safe and deny responsibility.

johnnyskeleton

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think any questions about a person's own medical situation has no place on that forum.

Such questions should instead be posted in BGRH!

DeVore

Its a great question drkpower. One that doesnt have a good answer unfortunately.

If you pull on that thread of logic, we would have to take Boards offline entirely, ultimately. Its a question of risk and a certain amount of gambling I guess! We believe that we operate without negligence and within the law. However a judge may or may not see it that way. Its a law that has not been tested in court yet. Are we responsible for what goes through our machines or not?

No one really knows and no one can really tell us.

So, we pitch our risk-tent where we feel comfortable with it. In the early days most lawyers told us we were nuts to have a tent at all . Most said we should shut the site down for fear of suit.

Havent any of you ever asked yourselves why we've been "let away" with grabbing all of the eyeballs on the internet here, for 10 years, without any major corporate competition??

No eircom forums? No Ryanair forums? No hypermegaglobocorp alternative to boards? Weird isnt that, when you consider how much competition there is about everything else online.

Its not like we haven't gotten in their faces. We win lots of awards, we take on their advertising and they are often forced to deal with us due to threads on here about them... Its not like "social networks" are a backwater of the internet.

They dont have them because they have something to lose. Their corporate lawyers are programmed to protect the mothership from "unnecessary" risk. No one in their right mind is going to open themselves up to that chance even if its a tiny chance. Well, no corporate entity is going to...

If someone posts "paracetemol gives you a great buzz if you take 10 of them" on our Golf forum, and someone else follows their instructions, we cannot be held responsible for that as its NOT what the forum was designed/intended for. But if someone gives medical advice on a forum called "ask here for medical advice supplied to you by Boards.ie" and they get bad advice.... then they have a much much stronger case.

Ironic that people give us so much grief about "chickening out from freedom of speech" when in fact a lot of legal people think we are hanging in the wind!

Why do we do it you asked.... why do we allow the forums at all? Because we think its important that Ireland has a platform like this. Otherwise we are simply running from a legal threatening possibility and that is the start of the end of the irish internet.

DeV.

Steve

Enlightening as always DeV.

Is there any such thing as insurance for this?

Doctors have professional insurance as do Solicitors, why not internet forums?

Just curious.

DeVore

woah... what an interesting idea... I dont think we could, I doubt we could afford it and in the sense that if it turns out we ARE completely responsible for what the public write here, then "here" would almost certainly cease to exist as it would become completely unworkable, making insurance a pointless exercise.

DeV.

drkpower

Thanks for the reply DeVore, its an interesting area and im sure there will be a judgment at some point in the future that might clarify the various issues; my personal view is that internet forums will get some kind of exemption from liability unless they act irresponsibly (ie. by encouraging advice to be provided ) or grossly negligently (ie failing to close down a thread that repeatedly libels somebody) - considering the number of threads on here i think u guys are doing a pretty good job (even if occasionally ye are a bit lax or overjudicious!)

keep up the good work!

sceptre

I looked into libel insurance for a publication I was editing before. Obviously not the same as for a web forum (any sort of actual publication is obviously the publisher and that's the part that hasn't been tested in the Irish courts with regard to webforums) but just as a vague indication, it wasn't cheap, not at all. And the best they'd offer was a ten grand excess. Wasn't worth it. I just decided to err on the side of caution, which obviously isn't a luxury that boards often has.

When editing an actual publication, you can both book the acts and tell them which way they have to jump. Neither of those options are really available in webland. As the job I had also came with a quite small webforum, the most helpful advice that any solicitor was prepared to hand out was along the lines of "if you insist on keeping it, just act quickly to take down anything that might be libellous". That's what we had to do the few times postings resulted in that possibility. Pretty frustrating that no-one actually knows.