Forum Feedback.

hullaballoo

Hi folks,

It's been on my mind recently that some users may not be 100% happy with the way this forum is run. As such, I think it's a good idea to get some feedback from you people so that a more democratic solution can be reached, rather than the Moderators simply pooh-poohing threads of complaint. Some aspects cannot be changed - that is a bare fact - but there are other areas where we can be maleable.

I've attached a poll with a few options to start us off. I would be interested to see what other options you would like to see added to the poll. What I am most interested in is constructive feedback surrounding the running of this forum. All suggestions will be welcomed, though, as mentioned not all will be implemented.

Thanks for your time,
hullaballoo.

[P.S. LD Mods, please do not vote on this thread.]

hullaballoo

Unsticking thread because *sigh* people are more likely to read it if it isn't a sticky.

ronnie3585

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

I think the rules are fair. They are in place for a very good reason.

McCrack

I think more leeway/indulgance should be given towards allowing legal advice. I feel it's a missed opportunity not to allow people legally trained to depart their knowledge. Everyone learns. I'm also pretty confident dodgy advice would be weeded out pretty sharpish by the regular posters who are practitioners.

If AAM can do it I cant see why boards cant. Change the rules and allow it. I'm sure a caveat explicitly stating 'your own risk, we will not be liable blah de blah' should do the trick.

Too much of a nanny mentality running through (although it's eased up a bit lately)

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

McCrack wrote: »

I think more leeway/indulgance should be given towards allowing legal advice. I feel it's a missed opportunity not to allow people legally trained to depart their knowledge. Everyone learns. I'm also pretty confident dodgy advice would be weeded out pretty sharpish by the regular posters who are practitioners.

If AAM can do it I cant see why boards cant. Change the rules and allow it. I'm sure a caveat explicitly stating 'your own risk, we will not be liable blah de blah' should do the trick.

Too much of a nanny mentality running through (although it's eased up a bit lately)

Here here!

There is nothing to read here most of the time, as one is barred from engaging in any legal analysis on most of the it-happened-to-me! threads for fear of it being construed as 'advice'.

I genuinely doubt the possibility of an "I read it on boards" excuse ever translating to a defence back in the real world's legal system, much less magically shifting liability onto boards. Anyone for a nice big cup of Ignorantia legis neminem excusat?? People dream up their own legal rubbish all day long and merrily take others' promulgations on board too. If they're stupid enough to believe that it's safe to legally advise themselves on the internet instead of consulting a professional, then that's their own business.

In summary, I don't think the rules are unfair, more pointless. The moderation is done according to said pointless rules and the forum suffers.

hullaballoo

I've added an option for 'legal advice should be allowed'. This is one of those things that I can't see happening without a proper petition to the admins being drawn up. Frankly, I think people who are in favour of a blanket discretion to allow legal advice are tragically misguided in relation to the law surrounding negligent misstatement.

I mean, a number of us have openly stated that we are professionals. I can only verify the accuracy of that on behalf of one other user here (I'm sure he'd return the favour), but beyond that, even I have no idea who's really who. I certainly wouldn't be naive enough about the Internet to think that there's no one devious enough to come in here prattling on about being a SC and purporting to advise people as to their rights left, right and centre on some morally-justified premise of freedom of access to the law.

I also wouldn't over-estimate the stupidity of some of the people requesting legal advice. I can easily envisage somebody heading into the district court trying to defend a drink driving offence with, 'a solicitor off the internet told me to tell the judge that I'm a Gary Doyle order, ipso facto, I go free, your honour'.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

hullaballoo wrote: »

I've added an option for 'legal advice should be allowed'. This is one of those things that I can't see happening without a proper petition to the admins being drawn up. Frankly, I think people who are in favour of a blanket discretion to allow legal advice are tragically misguided in relation to the law surrounding negligent misstatement.

I mean, a number of us have openly stated that we are professionals. I can only verify the accuracy of that on behalf of one other user here (I'm sure he'd return the favour), but beyond that, even I have no idea who's really who. I certainly wouldn't be naive enough about the Internet to think that there's no one devious enough to come in here prattling on about being a SC and purporting to advise people as to their rights left, right and centre on some morally-justified premise of freedom of access to the law.

I also wouldn't over-estimate the stupidity of some of the people requesting legal advice. I can easily envisage somebody heading into the district court trying to defend a drink driving offence with, 'a solicitor off the internet told me to tell the judge that I'm a Gary Doyle order, ipso facto, I go free, your honour'.

Hi Hulla

Im rather partial to a bit of negligent misstatement myself but how does a duty of care arise from one babbling internet poster to another babbling internet poster where as you say, anyone could be anybody or posing as anybody? Does case law exist on this point? I'm serious - I'd like to hear of it; I'm not an expert. What I do see though are countless places across the web which facilitate e.g. 12 year olds advising on everything from cancer to drink driving charges to receivership which are not finding themselves in difficulty for allowing stupid people to rely on non-contractual, non-verifiable non-professional internet advice from anybodys.

I can see dangers relating to defamation, privacy, prejudice etc. and all of those are *certainly* valid concerns that should be moderated. Legal discussion here is stifled because without the real-world problem Q's, there is not a lot of motivation for spontaneous intellectual debate.

I see topics with interesting legal questions that get locked daily, yet irrelevant non legal discussion "I'm sooooooooooo pi$$ed off with the Law Soc / Griffith Manuals / Law Corporations I once held dear to my heart / life not working out as I planned" goes on unfettered simply because it's just waffle and suspinion. It's a shame.

hullaballoo

Why not construct a few problem questions? Maybe that's what this forum needs - debate around what different people would advise in various situations?

I'd be more than happy to facilitate or even propagate that. But a lot of people have and do come in here looking for legal advice that they intend to rely on. It's a sad reflection on them, but it's the truth. I think the elements are there for someone at least to come up with an arguable case against boards.ie in neg. misstatement. Ok, they might not be successful, but boards.ie's resources are better used other than fighting off (however frivolous etc.) claims against them.

Since it's untested, many lawyers would be happy to break the ice on the whole tortious liability on the internet. The potential for damages is huge. I just won't allow myself to be responsible for that until I'm sure what the outcome would be. I'm writing a thesis on it later this year, so perhaps things will change then.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Why not construct a few problem questions? Maybe that's what this forum needs - debate around what different people would advise in various situations?

I'd be more than happy to facilitate or even propagate that. But a lot of people have and do come in here looking for legal advice that they intend to rely on. It's a sad reflection on them, but it's the truth. I think the elements are there for someone at least to come up with an arguable case against boards.ie in neg. misstatement. Ok, they might not be successful, but boards.ie's resources are better used other than fighting off (however frivolous etc.) claims against them.

Since it's untested, many lawyers would be happy to break the ice on the whole tortious liability on the internet. The potential for damages is huge. I just won't allow myself to be responsible for that until I'm sure what the outcome would be. I'm writing a thesis on it later this year, so perhaps things will change then.

It has been tried. I remember some time back johnnyskeleton made a big effort and threw up some thought provoking questions but people just don't respond the same way to obscure legal principles as they do to real life questions... They lack either the interest or the expertise or both and as they are not permitted to discuss real legal problems they are left with very little else.

To be honest with you, I disagree re. the potential for liability for online negligent misstatement on generalist public access forums... The obvious questions spring to mind:

Reasonableness: how plausible will it ever be to propose "I read it on a chatroom" as an argument or a defence? I believe the judiciary would have to go simultaneously insane (some are already nearly there ). It's such a non-runner in my book that I think that is why it is untested. Perhaps it has been already tested -somewhere in the American wonderland- and has been decided in the inherently daft negatory?

Floodgates / free speech: the internet is a big place without territorial borders; tens if not hundreds of millions of amateur advisers use it to spread both good advice and bad every hour of the day. Will every bulletin board in the world have to shut down for fear of lurking Irish plaintiffs relying on misinformation that could be construed as 'advice'?

As for boards resources and time, while I see your point in principle ... daydreaming up the billed hours for the dopey loser plaintiff sure would be fun Good luck with the thesis - would like to read it when you're done even

hullaballoo

Just an anecdotal point, but the admins have told me in the past that at various stages of this site's expansion, solicitors have told them they're perfectly insane to be opening themselves up to such liability. You might have noticed that there are relatively few (certainly Irish and UK) sites solely devoted to the discussion forum thing.

On the floodgates thing: it's Ireland and boards.ie comes up on google for pretty much every subject-matter conceiveable and it's usually one of the first links. So, you end up with lots of people coming to one place which means that that one place can be sued by all those people.

Edit: Someone actually wanting to read something I wrote?

You do read my posts, right? Imagine my posts, but more formal and about 2,000 times the length. Still interested?

Mena

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

I'm not a regular contributor, but an avid lurker. I'd say things are fine as they are. While allowing legal advice would be nice, it would lead to all sorts of complications. And we all know that legislation is skewed in the area of online communications/publishing.

Leave it as it is.

nuac

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

Agree it would be nice if legal advice could be generously given. However those offering the advice and those who administer this board have to consider Hedley Byrne and Heller - as do their insurers.

Further - legal problems can rarely be fully stated in a few lines of text - usually documents have to be read and meetings held.

seamus

hullaballoo wrote: »

[P.S. LD Mods, please do not vote on this thread.]

Indeed, for anyone who is iffy about voting on a public poll, I imagine hulla made it public so that it's clear that the results aren't being skewed or altered (yes we can do that!) by the mods or by people who don't even use this forum, voting for the craic.

Most people here have strong opinions, but you can take it for granted that whichever way you vote won't affect how you're treated here (for better or worse), so don't be afraid to add your voice.

Sangre

Forum suits me fine. Although I'd never use it for legal advice, only help on a legal point.

The_Minister

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

Tbh, I've seen some awful rubbish promoted as legal fact here on boards (in particular about contract and criminal law).
If people want free legal advice they can head to FLAC, we shouldn't put boards at risk.
We can't advise people unless we know all the facts, and we aren't going to get them in the detail that is normally presented in a post here.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

Not here long enough to give any great feedback, sorry.

I do believe legal advice should be given, but a disclaimer be posted? Boards.ie is a place where you can talk about various things, boards.ie is the facilitator nothing more. How could boards.ie be held liable if I take someones legal advice?

A lot of "legal advice" would be peoples opinions, not very accurate and if people were to follow this advice it wouldn't be a good idea.

Come here mainly to get peoples opinions.

Sangre

Ironically the more boards tries to moderator any legal advice given the more likely they will be held accountable for it. Its lose-lose. The same goes from defamatory statements where moderation can change a party from secondary publisher to a primary one.

hullaballoo

Sangre wrote: »

Ironically the more boards tries to moderator any legal advice given the more likely they will be held accountable for it. Its lose-lose. The same goes from defamatory statements where moderation can change a party from secondary publisher to a primary one.

That's the sad truth of it. However, by virtue of the arrangement on boards, I think there's a fair argument in relation to defamation at least that we react when put on notice. It would be impossible for someone to actively pre-empt every situation where a defamatory claim may arise short of educating all 400+ (I think?) mods in the ways of the circus that is Irish defamation law.

Pub07

The rules are unfair.

As Rhonda was saying, I can see absolutely no reason why boards.ie could end up liable for advice one of its anonymous posters gives to another poster.

Itd be like trying to sue a guy down the pub you didn't even know who you asked for advice on something. Actually that's not the most accurate analogy because it is painting boards.ie as the entity giving the advice. A better one would be calling someone up at random from the telephone directory, getting advice off them, and then suing Eircom who provided the medium that enabled you take advice from someone you dont even know.

evercloserunion

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

Pub07 wrote: »

As Rhonda was saying, I can see absolutely no reason why boards.ie could end up liable for advice one of its anonymous posters gives to another poster.

Itd be like trying to sue a guy down the pub you didn't even know who you asked for advice on something. Actually that's not the most accurate analogy because it is painting boards.ie as the entity giving the advice. A better one would be calling someone up at random from the telephone directory, getting advice off them, and then suing Eircom who provided the medium that enabled you take advice from someone you dont even know.

All this talk about whether or not boards.ie would win a case against a potential plaintiff is largely irrelevant. Maybe they would win, yes, but the moderators have to protect the board not only against potential losses due to a successful claim but against the lengthy, costly and time- and effort-consuming process of having to defend a claim. The question simply isn't settled enough for legal advice to be given out here freely. The danger is always there and while the chance of the danger materializing may be slim the potential harm to the site more than compensates for this.

_JOE_

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

I've been an avid reader of this board for a while now...I think that thing are at present fine. I find the moderators fair minded, willing to contribute and in the main don't engage in any power trips...
Regerding the issue of legal advice, i don't think it would be appropriate here, mainly because the board is more exposed to any and every type of poster (due to its traffic) who could just come on just because they wanted something answered, regardless whether od not it concerned them...
One thing that i perhaps would like to see would be a greater discussion of recent cases and there significance...(it might take us away from all the talk of doom and gloom!)

Keep up the good work...

danash

The rules are unfair.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Why not construct a few problem questions? Maybe that's what this forum needs - debate around what different people would advise in various situations?

I'd be more than happy to facilitate or even propagate that. But a lot of people have and do come in here looking for legal advice that they intend to rely on. It's a sad reflection on them, but it's the truth. I think the elements are there for someone at least to come up with an arguable case against boards.ie in neg. misstatement. Ok, they might not be successful, but boards.ie's resources are better used other than fighting off (however frivolous etc.) claims against them.

Since it's untested, many lawyers would be happy to break the ice on the whole tortious liability on the internet. The potential for damages is huge. I just won't allow myself to be responsible for that until I'm sure what the outcome would be. I'm writing a thesis on it later this year, so perhaps things will change then.

Your level of disdain and condescension to the readers of this forum beggars belief - as a self proclaimed expert in negligent mistatement ( allegedly - because I dont know you from Adam ) - can you outline a precedent in Irish or applicable law for the 'stupid' people that you seem to think will quote you in court? Are you circulating in such a supreme position that everyone that doesn't believe what you say must be 'stupid' ?

I'm sure that statement will be seen as a breach of your charter but is my opinion in any case. IANAL

besty

evercloserunion wrote: »

All this talk about whether or not boards.ie would win a case against a potential plaintiff is largely irrelevant. Maybe they would win, yes, but the moderators have to protect the board not only against potential losses due to a successful claim but against the lengthy, costly and time- and effort-consuming process of having to defend a claim. The question simply isn't settled enough for legal advice to be given out here freely. The danger is always there and while the chance of the danger materializing may be slim the potential harm to the site more than compensates for this.

That really is the crux of things. This area is so untested that the potential for any suit against Boards is incentive enough to err on the side of caution in the moderation of the legal/medical etc. fora. The bare fact is that this site, as large and successful as it is, simply doesn't have the time or resources to even defend any such claim properly - regardless of its merits.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

If someone here who is a legal counsel (whatever the correct term would be), could tell me with a pretty decent surety that we couldnt be done for it, then i'd be only too delighted to do it. I'd do it tomorrow.

But if you are going to answer this question, I really would like to know some form of qualifications history etc because, while i'm happy to hear an armchair-lawyers point of view (and please, dont feel put off).... I also need to know who is telling me its ok.

I have heard a HUNDRED people say to me "but SURELY you cant get sued for what I write on Boards". In my experience "Surely" and "I assume/presume" should be stricken from the English language when it comes to irish law.

If I hear someone starts a sentence about the topic with "Surely..." I am compelled to jump in and tell them to stop. Whatever they say after that word is of 0 content to me because it translates to "I dont know what I'm talking about but I presume that this is the way the law is because thats how it would be if I was king".

Its lethal.

DeV.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

besty wrote: »

That really is the crux of things. This area is so untested that the potential for any suit against Boards is incentive enough to err on the side of caution in the moderation of the legal/medical etc. fora. The bare fact is that this site, as large and successful as it is, simply doesn't have the time or resources to even defend any such claim properly - regardless of its merits.

I dont want to get into this for obvious reasons but I wanted to add:

You ehhhh realise we're being sued right now, right?

DeV.

besty

DeVore wrote: »

I dont want to get into this for obvious reasons but I wanted to add:

You ehhhh realise we're being sued right now, right?

DeV.

Ah yes...that issue! :pac:

Let me rephrase that. I don't want the legal discussion forum to ironically add to the current legal woes of boards.

evercloserunion

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

WHat's the legal scandal eh? Is it that MCD thing still or are ye getting even more bother?

DeVore

The rules are fair.

There is still an "active" case between MCD and Boards. Beyond that you'll just have to read my book

We get a legal letter a week on average, easy. Most of it is shots accross the bow and most have been dealt with long before the letter hits the mat.


Isnt there any way to get an idea if something you are doing or planning to do is "legal" or not? Do you have to stick your head in the guillitine to find out first?

DeV.

evercloserunion

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

DeVore wrote: »

There is still an "active" case between MCD and Boards. Beyond that you'll just have to read my book

We get a legal letter a week on average, easy. Most of it is shots accross the bow and most have been dealt with long before the letter hits the mat.


Isnt there any way to get an idea if something you are doing or planning to do is "legal" or not? Do you have to stick your head in the guillitine to find out first?

DeV.

Well legal advice is generally the best way to go about that. If it was a serious and complicated enough issue you would probably have to hire a solicitor I imagine which would still cost you but obviously not as much. Kind of like running your finger along the blade instead of sticking your head in the guillotine.

If it's something you're wondering for boards.ie though you could probably avail of the legally educated mod staff here. I would support an effort either by the government or by private individuals or bodies to publish in a clear and readable manner the law in a range of areas relevant to the common man or woman. Even that may not help boards though. The problem is that the law is so untested that sound advice is hard to come by I would imagine.

Once again it's the very risk of legal action that constitutes the dominant threat, which only adds to the uncertainty. This isn't a problem peculiar to boards.ie but is seen everywhere, particularly in the net. Case in point is Eircom's running away with the music industry. They turned on their customers in order to settle a legal action brought by four music labels, yet there was no guarantee that they would actually have lost the case and some seemed to be suggesting that they were sure to win it.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

If it's something you're wondering for boards.ie though you could probably avail of the legally educated mod staff here. I would support an effort either by the government or by private individuals or bodies to publish in a clear and readable manner the law in a range of areas relevant to the common man or woman. Even that may not help boards though. The problem is that the law is so untested that sound advice is hard to come by I would imagine.

Yes that seems to be the way it is. Which is bonkers. Not a little bonkers either... like mucho bonkers.

Once again it's the very risk of legal action that constitutes the dominant threat, which only adds to the uncertainty. This isn't a problem peculiar to boards.ie but is seen everywhere, particularly in the net. Case in point is Eircom's running away with the music industry. They turned on their customers in order to settle a legal action brought by four music labels, yet there was no guarantee that they would actually have lost the case and some seemed to be suggesting that they were sure to win it.

Eircom will be happy to rid itself of their biggest bandwidth users while pointing to the **AA's and saying it was the big bad man who made them do it. Spineless cowards. I dont agree that downloaders should be able to take take take without giving something but Eircom made a deal with the devil because it suited them imho.

Back on the topic, yes I can see how not wanting to take the risk makes sense from their point of view but its awful for society.

What seems to have developed is a use of the courts as a punitive measure. ie: I threaten to sue you, make all sorts of noise and jump up and down and fan a big big wad of money under your nose. You see that I can take the pain of a long court case even if I fail, but you cant. Your lawyer says you have a damned good shot at winning but you cant take the risk of losing so you capitulate to me.

This is our justice system being bought, one case at a time. And it makes me mad.

I dont know what will happen with us. We dont have anything like the money it will cost if we lose but I just feel we need to draw a line in the sand and say we wont be bullied. We have done no wrong imho.


DeV.

Johnny Utah

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

I voted for options 1 & 2.

Re legal advice:
Irrespective of whether boards.ie would ever be sued for negligent misstatement, there is always the possibility that poor legal advice may be offered which could have very adverse consequences for the person who relies on it in the real world. For this reason alone, legal advice is not appropriate imo.

evercloserunion

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

I know it's off topic but I had to ask, does anyone else see the Eircom ad which is currently on my screen (just below the last post on the page) inviting you to "Download your favourite movies faster" by switching to Eircom broadband?

You have to laugh.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

The board is called legal discussion and will not be renamed legal advice as far as I am aware. Regrettably, I would say 75% threads on here are repetitive gossip / spin / veiled insults and cyber oneupmanship and the rest have some form of legal discussion. This balance cannot change without the rules being loosened to accommodate discussion of real world legal problems. People are lazy. Legal scholars, practitioners, enthusiasts etc. generally have better things to be doing than dreaming up weird and wonderful legal scenarios to post on boards to ensure some legal discussion takes place. Real world problems, on the other hand, interest people and so they go and find out the applicable principles etc. and post them.

As I said already, retarded people everywhere take up internet chatter relating to problems that sound like their own and mistake it for being gospel. These people have only themselves to blame for when it all goes wrong, not boards or ill-informed posters spouting crap on boards. The existence of idiotic people out there shouldn't stifle the possibility for stimulating, enriching legal discussion taking place, but the rules are such here that the imbeciles win out.

In summary -
* If the rules are to remain I think the room would be better renamed Legal Gossip for it to better describe the allowable content.

* If the rules are relaxed the room may become more legal discussion oriented. Disclaimers to repel any possibility of IMO unsustainable 'negligent misstatement for internet speech' arguments to protect boards and the stupid people, as ever will continue doing stupid things.

Beruthiel

The moderation is heavy-handed and unfair.

danash wrote: »

Your level of disdain and condescension to the readers of this forum beggars belief - as a self proclaimed expert in negligent mistatement ( allegedly - because I dont know you from Adam ) - can you outline a precedent in Irish or applicable law for the 'stupid' people that you seem to think will quote you in court? Are you circulating in such a supreme position that everyone that doesn't believe what you say must be 'stupid' ?

I'm sure that statement will be seen as a breach of your charter but is my opinion in any case. IANAL

If you feel that there is no problem in giving legal advice over the internet, feel free to set up your own site and fire away.
As has been stated already, we do our best on this site to walk a very fine line. We are not going to willingly put ourselves in harms way and risk bringing more trouble on our heads.

danash

The rules are unfair.

Beruthiel wrote: »

If you feel that there is no problem in giving legal advice over the internet, feel free to set up your own site and fire away.
As has been stated already, we do our best on this site to walk a very fine line. We are not going to willingly put ourselves in harms way and risk bringing more trouble on our heads.

If you had read my posts on this thread on and on the other thread I started questioning the title of the forum you will see that I make several references to the fact that it is your site and you make the rules. I seem to have upset a number of people by daring to question the effectiveness of those rules and if they are so easily upset it doesn't concern me. They choose rather to flame me than deal with the ineffectiveness of the site as evidenced by some of the poll results above. If they are in fact lawyers I would not like to have them as my advocate if they react so easily to a contrary view.

I asked the same question over on AAM and got some very pertinent information that assisted me with my strategy in dealing with my marital separation. How bizarre is it that Brendan is prepared to 'walk the fine line' you are afraid of.

Doctors differ etc.......


Boards.ie does not save lives - it provides a forum for intelligent debate that is quite often stifled at birth.


As I said it's your football and you can take it home anytime you want......

Maximilian

Leaving aside the potential liability for Boards if someone relied on incorrect advice, I think the rules exist to protect the very people who would come here looking for that advice, whether they appreciate it or not (and they generally don't).

The chances of someone harming themselves from advice recieved here is probably low but it just takes one person, one instance in maybe a thousand and then the kaka hits the revolving air-conditioning device.

I always use the same analogy but if people are sick, they should go to a doctor, not seek medical advice from the internet. Same thing here.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

If that is the case, the entire thing should be wound up for fear of some poor deficient person coming to the wrong conclusion about something they read on the internet and inadvertently harming themselves.

I wonder why this thread was started - it's now obvious there was no possibility of the rules being changed at all, rendering discussion on the point a useless daydream. Seemingly the protection of stupid people must be upheld at any cost and framed in fears about the untested online negligent misstatement doctrine such self-injured stupid people may one day find themselves pioneering in a courthouse somewhere. I don't buy it anyway.

Question - have the ISP's not negligently hosting e.g. 'successful' suicide pacts causing people to take their own lives been held liable in the US, i.e. the most litigious and frivolity-accepting legal system in the world? If not, what is the basis for believing this liability will crop up here??

In summary, merge legal discussion with After Hours, just to be safe

Maximilian

Mostly leaving your faecetious reply aside, Boards is not an ISP nor is a US decision (source?) binding here.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

I am well aware of both points, however I posit that ISP's, hosting servers and other related technologies are analogous in terms of information dissemination, 'public' ownership / accessibility and management and thus would have the rules of liability applied in similar ways in the legal sense should it come to it.

My point about the American jurisdiction was to highlight the fact that this 'internet negligent misstatement' predicament that we have got so worked up about on this forum has not emerged there, notwithstanding the more enthusiastic approach to litigation and judicial tolerance. The fear that it will suddenly pop up in Ireland and shut down boards.ie is wholly inflated IMO.

I apologize for sounding facetious but I was trying to get across how futile I feel the concepts of fearing a hypothetical legal innovation of internet negligent misstatement and the need to mollycoddle stupid people at the cost of staying silent lest they damage themselves from internet reading are.

drkpower

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

I am well aware of both points, however I posit that ISP's, hosting servers and other related technologies are analogous in terms of information dissemination, 'public' ownership / accessibility and management and thus would have the rules of liability applied in similar ways in the legal sense should it come to it.

My point about the American jurisdiction was to highlight the fact that this 'internet negligent misstatement' predicament that we have got so worked up about on this forum has not emerged there, notwithstanding the more enthusiastic approach to litigation and judicial tolerance. The fear that it will suddenly pop up in Ireland and shut down boards.ie is wholly inflated IMO.

I apologize for sounding facetious but I was trying to get across how futile I feel the concepts of fearing a hypothetical legal innovation of internet negligent misstatement and the need to mollycoddle stupid people at the cost of staying silent lest they damage themselves from internet reading are.

Its not a hypothetical legal innovation - the "default" position is that a forum is a publication like any other and the general principles apply - it would require an "innovation" to carve out internets forum from the law.

The reason this tort has not emerged in the US is because they have already legislated to ensure that liability will only exist where the forum acted irresponsibly/recklessly - they have essentially carved out forums from the general operation of the law. A similar approach by the Irish legislature would make a lot of sense.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

if any lawyer is willing to put their professional name to a statement that says we are perfectly within the law to offer legal advice... please post below with their professional details and a phone number I can verify it on. I'm quite serious, if you are willing to put your name to that I'd like to hear.

I need you to state that:

a) you are an expert with qualifications

b) it is the correct interpretation of law

c) which we can rely on

d) and that you take liability for it if it turns out to be wrong.



DeV.

Maximilian

DeVore wrote: »

if any lawyer is willing to put their professional name to a statement that says we are perfectly within the law to offer legal advice... please post below with their professional details and a phone number I can verify it on. I'm quite serious, if you are willing to put your name to that I'd like to hear.

I need you to state that:

a) you are an expert with qualifications

b) it is the correct interpretation of law

c) which we can rely on

d) and that you take liability for it if it turns out to be wrong.



DeV.

and (e) have Professional Indemnity Insurance.

What you're describing Dev is of course a solicitor.

What a number of people don't understand is that this is a legal discussion forum, not a solicitors practice. Not a free legal aid centre. I doubt Boards could lawfully offer legal advice even if it was willing to do so.

It is a criminal offense for an unqualified person to act as a solicitor (S.55 SA 1954) or to pretend to be one. There are reasons we have laws regulating the giving of legal advice that seemingly eludes a lot of people. There are limitations to what you can get (for free) on the internet.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

+ What Max said.

DeV.

DeVore

The rules are fair.

When Hulla and I started this forum we discussed what it would be about. My desire was to solve the following problem:


From my involvement with Boards and other bits and pieces in my life, I had discovered that what I "assumed" to be the law (because it seemeed reasonable), often wasn't the case.

When I pushed this further I discovered that many people were similarly ignorant of the ACTUAL laws of the society they live in and how that whole system works. They live in a delusional bubble of "presumption" and since 9/10 people probably will never have to interact with the law on a serious basis, that works fine for them.

I'm fascinated by how large groups of people agree the boundaries and rules of their society both from a philosophical point of view and also a pramatic point of view. Even more so now that people turn around to me on this site and say "hey, we need a ruling or a mediation on an argument over here". So I can see the complexity of the whole thing from the other side.


What I wanted was a space where real people could query bits of the law and how its formed and how its implemented and find out how they are governed by the legal system. I wanted a place where Joe Public could come and say "can someone explain to me what a tort is?" "What are squatters rights?"

Additionally I wanted a place where people accross the legal system could come and discuss issues pertaining to their "community".

What I'm not interested in is "My brother just got done for an ounce of weed, what should he do?". There are people and organisations for those sorts of specific issues.

This thread was started to see if people were happy with the moderatorship in terms of achieving those ends, and it seems they are. It can be improve but in part thats up to the general public and their willingness to engage with the way they are governed.

I have a feeling its going to become a hotter topic soon too

DeV.

Gangu

My issue with the forum is somewhat different to most of the posters. I like the forum also be a place for lawyers to share and exchange views on the legal market, various firms etc but I think that the moderators approach is heavy handed in that regard. I had a thread removed recently without any reference to a specific rule by way of explanation, which one would expect as a matter of course. One instance does not give me cause for concern, it could just be an aberration, however this seems to be a general approach taken by the mods here on various threads.

As an IT solicitor that has to advise clients running fora all the time I think that the rules on boards.ie are prudent regarding legal advice. Some of the hypothetical scenarios threads are pulled rather quickly instead of an appropriate edit being made though.

My 2c.

Maximilian

Gangu wrote: »

My issue with the forum is somewhat different to most of the posters. I like the forum also be a place for lawyers to share and exchange views on the legal market, various firms etc but I think that the moderators approach is heavy handed in that regard. I had a thread removed recently without any reference to a specific rule by way of explanation, which one would expect as a matter of course. One instance does not give me cause for concern, it could just be an aberration, however this seems to be a general approach taken by the mods here on various threads.

As an IT solicitor that has to advise clients running fora all the time I think that the rules on boards.ie are prudent regarding legal advice. Some of the hypothetical scenarios threads are pulled rather quickly instead of an appropriate edit being made though.

My 2c.

That's a fair point I think. It's a fine line sometimes. There have been threads which skirt along the charter. For my part, I close some and leave others to see how they pan out, particularly if its a fairly harmless issue. It's a judgement call by the mods and I'm sure we don't always get it right.

Rhonda9000

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

DeVore wrote: »

if any lawyer is willing to put their professional name to a statement that says we are perfectly within the law to offer legal advice... please post below with their professional details and a phone number I can verify it on. I'm quite serious, if you are willing to put your name to that I'd like to hear.

I need you to state that:

a) you are an expert with qualifications

b) it is the correct interpretation of law

c) which we can rely on

d) and that you take liability for it if it turns out to be wrong.



DeV.

But legal advice is NOT allowed

DeVore

The rules are fair.

The silence is really the most eloquent answer to the question isnt it.

If no one is willing to come forward and say "yeah you are on firm ground and I'll put my ass on the line and stand over that advice"... then I think its disingenuous to chide us for not taking that risk either.

I would welcome more interaction between lawyers especially in these times, regarding your business but more then any other forum, I'll be guided by the moderators here on that count

DeV.

Victor

The rules are pointless - legal advice should be allowed.

I think "asking for advice" threads could be turned into discussion threads more often.

Maximilian

Victor wrote: »

I think "asking for advice" threads could be turned into discussion threads more often.

It's kind of hard to do one thing without the other I think.

Also, if I hear one more person says that they're looking for opinions not advice I will burst into flames.

johnnyskeleton

Maximilian wrote: »

It's kind of hard to do one thing without the other I think.

Also, if I hear one more person says that they're looking for opinions not advice I will burst into flames.

I really am looking for opinions, not advice....





...waits patiently....