Question about a thread

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I am just wondering why boards.ie is adhering to, what I percieve to be, bullying from certain "companies". I know we don't have the right to speak about what we like here, but I think some cases it would be good for the public to be aware of. I speak of this thread: Linky.

If a company is not acting appropiately and it is discussed here, how can said company tell boards.ie and it's community what to say about that company? I mean, from what I can see this company dictated to the mods and asked to remove certain posts? Certain posts were edited and a message was put in the edited posts claiming that those posts had nothing to do with that company.

This is not an attack on any action taking by any mod, cmod or admin. It's simply an enquiry. Please excuse my ignorance on this matter.

sceptre

Short answer: libel issues.

The slightly longer answer is that while criticism of Company X may or may not be libellous depending on what's said, using the word "scam" almost always is. It puts the site in a bit of a hole when people use terms like that. We're bound by the provisions of last year's defamation act and previously we were bound by the 1960 one. There are ways of saying "I got involved with X and didn't like the way they did things" without using words like scam. For example.

Recently I made a post where I referred to a group of particular lawyers as "shysters". They objected. I thought it was reasonable of me to apologise. As it happens the rest of my post was far more accusatory and damning of the group in question - they didn't object to that because, well, the rest of it wasn't actually libellous by any standard, just dismissive.

Nothing to excuse with regard asking the question - it's a perfectly reasonable question you've asked, glad you asked it. After the decision in last year's Betfair libel case, we're a bit more protected but as a site we still have to take action where someone has been libelled and if they complain at the very least. All part of the cost of keeping the site going I'm afraid and to be honest, it's slightly reasonable - if people are libelled there should be something simple that a site can do to fix it without both sides having to go to the High Court at all.

IITYWYBMAD

I don't speak for boards.ie Ltd, but my 2c?

It appears that while boards encourages the dissemination of information on all manner of things, it cannot be seen to be a harbinger and vehicle for opinions or "facts" that it has no way of substantiating or qualifying.

While company X may be the worst company in the world, Boards cannot stand over the fact that company X is the worst company in the world, and this puts Boards.ie Ltd in a very dodgy position legally.

The opinions, are the opinions of the users, but Boards.ie cannot be the vehicle for those opinions, if there is a small chance that those opinions are wrong, or if those opinions can be proven to be wrong, in the eyes if the law.

Darragh

Being the one who handled that particular thread, all I can say is both posters above me are correct - it was done for legal reasons, on the basis of a complaint.

We would do the same for any company.

Our legal guidelines are here:

http://www.boards.ie/legal.php


Thanks

Darragh

AckwelFoley

I heard about this company on the Joe duffy show today.

I dont know which is worse, the law that limits peoples ability to moan about these people, or my admission to listening to joe duffy.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Thanks for the replies.

Is it possible for comments to stay up if there is evidence of this happening? Reports in the news for example, or many people reporting the same type of mistreatment by Company X? I mean, there is slander and unfounded claims which I can understand Boards.ie cannot be expected to entertain, but genuine claims, can they be posted?

I mean, if I say company X made me work 12 hours a day, and company X makes a complaint to boards.ie saying this did not happen, where do I stand in this case?

I understand that when a company requests you to take something down it looks even worse, in my opinion, and creates a bad image of that company.

AckwelFoley

Silas Uneven Businesswoman wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

Is it possible for comments to stay up if there is evidence of this happening? Reports in the news for example, or many people reporting the same type of mistreatment by Company X? I mean, there is slander and unfounded claims which I can understand Boards.ie cannot be expected to entertain, but genuine claims, can they be posted?

I mean, if I say company X made me work 12 hours a day, and company X makes a complaint to boards.ie saying this did not happen, where do I stand in this case?

I understand that when a company requests you to take something down it looks even worse, in my opinion, and creates a bad image of that company.

I see fully where you are comming from, unfortunatley, as a private forum, any content within it is -if not entirely owned by boards corp umbrella group :pac: but at the least they are responsible for what is said. I may be wrong, but i think im close.


I know its frustrating at the least, but i can imagine boards wants to avoid further litigation if possible

Darragh

Snyper, I'd highly recommend you take a read of our TOU - http://www.boards.ie/terms/tou.php

Basically, you are responsible for what you post. We are responsible if we are told about it and asked to take action, but you are legally responsible for what you write.

Is it possible for comments to stay up if there is evidence of this happening? Reports in the news for example, or many people reporting the same type of mistreatment by Company X? I mean, there is slander and unfounded claims which I can understand Boards.ie cannot be expected to entertain, but genuine claims, can they be posted?

Absolutely and I think it's important that they are. Words though like "scumbags" and "scam" can't really be used without proof. There's a big discussion to be had over the "proof" there but basically I think discussion of the facts would be better.

FYI - we have invited every Direct Marketing Company - including Protea Direct - who has contacted us in this regard to engage on the forum, to answer any questions and to be honest and upfront about what they do, and they have all refused.

AckwelFoley

Darragh wrote: »

Snyper, I'd highly recommend you take a read of our TOU - http://www.boards.ie/terms/tou.php

Basically, you are responsible for what you post. We are responsible if we are told about it and asked to take action, but you are legally responsible for what you write.

Is this as result of a legal ruling (ie the MCD case) or is it like the sign "cars park here at their own risk" which essentially means nothing other than wasting a good sign.

Im not unhappy with the way it is in the TOU, its better than the way i suggested,i would just like to know if there is weight behind the rules..

Darragh

It's nothing to do with any cases as such, it's just the law - if you say libellous or defamatory things about people online, you're as likely to be prosecuted as if you'd put it in a newspaper.

The whole weight of the legal system is what drives this - we have to go along with it.

AckwelFoley

Darragh wrote: »

It's nothing to do with any cases as such, it's just the law - if you say libellous or defamatory things about people online, you're as likely to be prosecuted as if you'd put it in a newspaper.

The whole weight of the legal system is what drives this - we have to go along with it.

well, then - if it is the poster that is libellous for a post they make - why do boards bother deleting posts and closing threads if they have no responsibility for what was posted?

(Im impartial either way, im just being devils advocate)

Scrumpy Jack

Darragh wrote: »

Snyper, I'd highly recommend you take a read of our TOU - http://www.boards.ie/terms/tou.php

Basically, you are responsible for what you post. We are responsible if we are told about it and asked to take action, but you are legally responsible for what you write.



Absolutely and I think it's important that they are. Words though like "scumbags" and "scam" can't really be used without proof. There's a big discussion to be had over the "proof" there but basically I think discussion of the facts would be better.

FYI - we have invited every Direct Marketing Company - including Protea Direct - who has contacted us in this regard to engage on the forum, to answer any questions and to be honest and upfront about what they do, and they have all refused.

What ever happened to that talk about the TOU etc?

You were going to come back to us? Right?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055771918

?

DeVore

If you have *court room tight proof* we will stand by it. The only way to be sure you have courtroom tight proof is to have it found valid in a court.

Neat trick of the judiciary eh? Dont shoot the guy on the soap-box... shoot the soapbox maker. That will make sure soapbox makers are BLOODY CAREFUL that no one uses their soapbox to say anything naughty, or inconveniently true.


Its not like this site is covered with Protea Direct ads or anything so the accusation of us "rolling over" is complete bull.

DeV.

Overheal

This thread is semi-relevant: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055812850

The best thing that can be done Iam is if someone Repudiates Protea Direct's official stance with Journalistic evidence of some sort, but in the absence of that, it seems hands are tied.

I don't speak for Tom or anybody, but my understanding is if you or anyone can provide Journalistic Evidence though I would take it somewhere like RTE or similar - not boards. When published by a journalist source im sure there would be no issue discussing it here.

Orion

Darragh wrote: »

Snyper, I'd highly recommend you take a read of our TOU - http://www.boards.ie/terms/tou.php

Basically, you are responsible for what you post. We are responsible if we are told about it and asked to take action, but you are legally responsible for what you write.

I accept all that and understand the legal reasoning. But did you have to state specifically what they don't do?

"BOARDS.IE EDIT: Protea Direct have asked to clarify that elements of this post do not directly relate to their company. They do not sell door to door." http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63189785&postcount=18

That looks like B.ie is stating that Protea doesn't sell door to door. I fail to see the reason for the second sentence.

Darragh wrote: »

FYI - we have invited every Direct Marketing Company - including Protea Direct - who has contacted us in this regard to engage on the forum, to answer any questions and to be honest and upfront about what they do, and they have all refused.

There's a ****ing shock :pac:

Darragh

That looks like B.ie is stating that Protea doesn't sell door to door. I fail to see the reason for the second sentence.

According to them they don't sell door to door. They asked us to clarify that, we did. I don't see the problem here?

RoundyMooney

Well, what it amounts to, and you may be constrained by the legal greymen; is that a communication from a commercial or other entity is taken as fact, whereas a communication from a user is not, and edited as such.

A better solution would be to allow the company themselves to respond, rather than doing so by proxy, perhaps? Maybe that option was offered, and refused by them, however?

I second the calls for an update on the ToU, btw. The security issue postdates that by a considerable period, although it may still be an ongoing task for ye.

LoLth

RoundyMooney wrote: »

A better solution would be to allow the company themselves to respond, rather than doing so by proxy, perhaps? Maybe that option was offered, and refused by them, however?

.

from Darragh's post above

FYI - we have invited every Direct Marketing Company - including Protea Direct - who has contacted us in this regard to engage on the forum, to answer any questions and to be honest and upfront about what they do, and they have all refused.

pickarooney

Darragh wrote: »

According to them they don't sell door to door. They asked us to clarify that, we did. I don't see the problem here?

It's a nuance, but I agree with Macros42 that it reads as though boards.ie is stating categorically that Protea does not sell door to door, and without evidence. Whether or not they do sell door to door is not clear; it's just he-said/she-said so really it should read more like:

"BOARDS.IE EDIT: Protea Direct wish to clarify that elements of this post do not directly relate to their company and that they do not sell door to door."

Wibbs

DeVore wrote: »

If you have *court room tight proof* we will stand by it. The only way to be sure you have courtroom tight proof is to have it found valid in a court.

Neat trick of the judiciary eh? Dont shoot the guy on the soap-box... shoot the soapbox maker. That will make sure soapbox makers are BLOODY CAREFUL that no one uses their soapbox to say anything naughty, or inconveniently true.


Its not like this site is covered with Protea Direct ads or anything so the accusation of us "rolling over" is complete bull.

DeV.

+1000. Just look at the blogger who got hit for 100,000 on the back of a recent Irish defamation court case. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7009820.ece

Now whatever about the daftness of Irish libel laws, its a reality and old media and litigous individuals and companies may try to exploit this more and more. Boards has already faced this once and indeed helped bring in more clarity and protection to the guy and the soapbox. Huge kudos on that score(and the complete opposite of rolling over too BTW), but care is still needed or the very people who need to be protected will lose and those who need to be exposed will win longterm.