h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The legal distinctions are irrelevant, I've already agreed that the law doesn't support me. I am speaking purely from a moral standpoint. Unless you are advocating that there is something that it is ok to say from a soapbox that it would not be ok to say on (for example) hootoo?

>> Unless you are advocating that there is something that it is ok to say from a soapbox that it would not be ok to say on (for example) hootoo? <<

I'm not advocating the telling of lies in any circumstances - just pointing out the difference between slander and libel. On h2g2 it would be libel.

If you think that telling lies and making those lies available to a wide audience knowing they are lies, without fear of conseqence is a good moral standpoint then you are welcome to it.

I'll stick to the moral standpoint that lies should be challenged with utmost vigor in all circumstances and that every action that can be taken should be taken and is justified to reduce the damage that lies can cause.


Donald

<< If you think that telling lies and making those lies available to a wide audience knowing they are lies, without fear of conseqence is a good moral standpoint then you are welcome to it.>>

I didn't say anything of the sort! I said that in the event that someone tells a lie the guilty party is the person who told the lie and not whomever provided the medium with which to do it (be that a webpage, soapbox, microphone or whatever else)

The key phrase is 'knowing that they are lies' I wouldn't advocate putting something you know to be a lie online. However I do not belive that it is a webpage authors job to check on everything that is said on a forum any more than it is a microphone producers job to check on everything that is said through their microphone.

You are getting your analogies mixed up again. There is a difference between a manufacture that provides the equipment and a service provider that provides the service.

Cisco have never been sued for Libel considering that most of the Internet runs on Cisco manufactured equipment.

Both publishers like WH Smith and Internet providers like the BBC provide a service. If the service they provide disseminates lies then they are doing a disservice.

>> I do not believe that it is a web-page authors job to check on everything that is said on a forum <<

Legal precedence has already accepted that an Internet provider cannot monitor everything that is posted on a public site in real time. However, once that they have been made aware of the libellous content, then they have both a moral and legal duty to remove it. In all the cases detailed in the link earlier, the publishers refused to remove the content once they had been made aware of it which led to the legal action.

The principle here is what you do when you have been informed that you are disseminating lies.

Donald

*sigh* It's possible for one thing to be analogos to more than one other thing. It's also possible for a thing to be analogous to another thing in one context but not in another. This is the first time you've made anything approaching a coherant argument as to why a microphone and a forum should not be analogus in the context of moral responsibility. Besides whether something is classified as equipment or a service has no meaning in this context, the net result is the same (the user can communicate with more people) so the moral burden is the same.

I am aware that the law does not support my view, I was made aware of the details of this earlier in the conversation and I am fairly sure I've explicitally stated it at least once previously. There can be a distinction between what is legal and what is right.

I'm not even sure that there should be a moral responsability to remove the content once the publisher is aware of it. It depends on the medium, if the author has the ability to remove it themselves then I'd argue any time or effort it would take to do so should be expended by the author of the comment.

IMO since you're making it possible for them to make the libellous post you would, once aware of it, have a duty to remove it
that they may well be able to make the same posting somewhere else on the web is very true but that is someone elses responsibility and does not absolve you of yours

>>It's also possible for a thing to be analogous to another thing in one context but not in another. <<<

But we are only concerned with one context here, and that is published libel.

>>This is the first time you've made anything approaching a coherent argument as to why a microphone and a forum should not be analogous in the context of moral responsibility.<<

Sorry, I thought it would have been obvious but I was wrong. I should have explained it in more simple terms earlier.

>>I'm not even sure that there should be a moral responsibility to remove the content once the publisher is aware of it.<<

I refer you to my post earlier. Your morals are obviously different than mine.

You, as an author, try removing something from h2g2 once it has been posted. It is impossible, with a very small exception - and that applies to almost all Internet forums and to almost any publishing medium. Once it has been submitted to the publishers, the author has little or no control over how it is handled.

>>I am aware that the law does not support my view,<<

Thank God for that - becasue your view is muddled and disjointed.

Donald

I can't even remember what is being argued about here Something about whether moderation is valid or not?



>>I said that in the event that someone tells a lie the guilty party is the person who told the lie and not whomever provided the medium with which to do it (be that a webpage, soapbox, microphone or whatever else)<< Acid

This is not strictly true. With TV, if they run an interview with someone who says something defamatory, and the TV station was unaware that it was defamatory, then they do have an obligation to run a retraction or correction once they find out i.e. they moderate the content.

"On h2g2 it would be libel."

They usually use the term 'potential defamation'. Because only a judge/jury/the legal system can decide if something is defamatory or not. And defamation covers libel and slander, so that gets around teh idea of most people considering writing on message boards to be 'speaking' rather than 'publishing'.

How many times have you see people say 'I didn't say that', or 'why can't you read what I say'? Which makes no sense...

Trouble is websites are neither books nor people talking in the street.

It can be at once both publically viewable and informally conversational.

Public conversation forums and guestbooks contain within them the opportunity for reply.

The person being defamed can only reply if they know of the existence of the defamation. It's true that most messageboards and , guestbooks, etc have a pretty small readership and are all but hidden in the morass of the www, but I wouldn't want to take the chance of leaving something defamatory on a forum which I had control of or was responsible for because you simply don't know who might read it and whether word might get back to the person in question.

That's entirely besides the point though if you've clicked 'Agree' on the website's terms and conditions, and those terms and conditions state that you must ensure that no defamatory material appears in the messages posted. Any website which allows people to host guestbooks or messageboards and which knows anything about the law will demand that people 'sign' that agreement. If you are the owner of the website then you'd better apprise yourself of the defamation laws PDQ.

Does the aspect of opinion come into it, as opposed to stating something as fact?

If a defamatory statment is prefaced by 'In my opinion' & especially if some evidence for that view is given, then is that still slander or libel?
The evidence may of course be some untruth that someone else has presented as fact & I suppose one might be criticised for not checking the validity of the information.

Lets imagine a hypothetical situation. Imagine I had a grudge against some public figure and wished to cause him some grief. Lets say Richard Branson for instance. Imagine if I were to post a message saying that Richard Branson is a thief. That he spent time in jail before he became publicly known and that he fathered and illegitimate child shortly after he got married.

Completely and utterly untrue, but how many people reading that would know Richard Branson well enough to know it is untrue. It is unlikely that Richard Branson would read it. But it is highly likely that some one who knows Richard Branson, like a friend of relative for instance, that would pass on the information.

What does Richard Branson do? Create a h2g2 account just so he can deny it while all the time it is being read by hundreds if not thousands of people. Even if he does deny it, the original accusation is still there to be read over and over again for many years. He needs it to be removed, and fast before it starts spreading and take steps to stop others from spreading the lies. He can't go round looking at every on-line forum on the Internet just to see if the allegation has been posted elsewhere.

Some of them are going to read it and post it on other forums. “Guess what I heard, Richard Branson was convicted of thieving in his younger days and is the father of an illegitimate child.” Before you know it, his reputation is in tatters. It doesn’t take long for rumour to become common knowledge, especially scandalous rumour. No one will trusts him just in case the allegation of dishonesty is true and his wife start looking at him strange.

How could he sue me for libel. He knows nothing about me where I live or my address. He could get the information from the BBC and from my ISP. That takes time as it would require a court order and he would have to show that he had a legitimate reason for wanting to know my personal detail. While all the time, more and more people are reading it, perhaps even other that may have a grudge against Richard Branson and are quite prepared to spread malicious gossip.

The simplest, quickest and fairest thing to do is to contact the BBC, tell them that the allegations are lies. The BBC, mindful of their legal obligations, would remove it. If by some chance the BBC refused to remove the offending posting then legal action would be necessary. It would then be up to me to the BBC to prove the allegations where true, not for Richard Branson to prove they are false.

Therefore, holding a publisher or Internet webb host responsible for what they publish is the fairest method of preventing libel. Until you have been defamed you cannot begin to imagine the damage it can cause.

In respect of what Teaswill said, If I was to say that Richard Branson is a silly old bugger that should know better than to go swanning around the world in balloons, then that would be an opinion, not libel. However, If I were to say that in my opinion, Richard Branson is a thief and an adulterer I would still have to prove it. Prefixing something with "In my opinion", doesn’t change a factual statement into an opinion.

Donald

Am I correct in thinking that the 'common abuse' plea cannot be used for internet material ?

And does the current law stand up to the values of our modern world ?

Apparently not to judge by some of the comments in this thread.

Actually its 'Vulgar Abuse' isn't it

I don't think "Vulgar abuse" has much standing in UK law, unlike France where they are trying to sue Denis McShane for calling them a bunch of Neo-Cons, which translates into French as Imbeciles.

http://www.dllegal.com/defamation.htm

Donald

Excellent points, Donald.