Freedom of Information

[John N]

It is apparent that, these days you have to be careful what you say on the internet, at least here in the UK.

I wonder whether this applies to servers hosted in, for instance the United States with it's Freedom of Information laws.
Do websites hosted in other countries enjoy greater freedom of speech than those hosted in the UK?

I also wonder what ways can be used to provide useful information to members of forums without the risk of legal action.

Perhaps using Private Messaging or email in response to enquiries regarding particular services would be useful, as this information would not be 'published' on the internet.

All these musings are of course independent of any particular incident which may have occurred. I just wondered.

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by John Nortcliff

It is apparent that, these days you have to be careful what you say on the internet, at least here in the UK.

I wonder whether this applies to servers hosted in, for instance the United States with it's Freedom of Information laws.
Do websites hosted in other countries enjoy greater freedom of speech than those hosted in the UK?

I also wonder what ways can be used to provide useful information to members of forums without the risk of legal action.

Perhaps using Private Messaging or email in response to enquiries regarding particular services would be useful, as this information would not be 'published' on the internet.

All these musings are of course independent of any particular incident which may have occurred. I just wondered.

The main thing here is that the first thing people see when they search for a particular brand or otherwise in something like Google is negative spiel. No matter whether that spiel may actually be physically fair and correct, it will make people think twice about using that brand.

There is freedom of speech, and human rights act protects that, however, there is a very big grey area so everyone errs on the side of caution.

However, even if the 'brand' is fraudulent they can still force an ISP to have the defamatory information removed even though it may be correct.

[And]

Originally Posted by John Nortcliff

Do websites hosted in other countries enjoy greater freedom of speech than those hosted in the UK?

I think so. It is a shame that some individuals, who are completely happy to use the internet and forums for profit, can then decide to threaten those people who helped them, by maintaining and paying for the very forums they used, simply because they failed to honour their own promises and business commitments. Its disgusting.

However, thats life in the world we live in, and you wouldn't want false information being posted about you. The unfortunate thing is that even where information posted is completely justified, the threat of legal action is enough to force compliance with unreasonable and unjustifiable demands. The businesses who provide the hosting services, just don't make the margins or have the resources to fight such things.

Andy

[ahar]

The main barrier to this wasthe decision several years ago in the Godfrey (or something like that) vs Demon Internet. The ins and outs are complicated, but it basically gave precident that operators of forums and bulletin boards can be held liable for defamatory posts by their members on their boards (given several caveats such as being notified by the injured party etc).

It's all wonderfully complicated, but the upshot is that ISPs and operators of forums (such as YD) have to 'delete first' and ask questions later. I think that a more sensible framework would be to hold the poster of the message liable, and the ISP or operator if they fail to remove the message once a court has decided that it is defamatory. However, due to the lack of specific legislation, case law is what counts.

There is probably the opportunity for someone to challenge the case law and go to court, but given the costs involved and the uncertainty of winning, no one has done it yet.

Unfortunatley this means that whether or not a post or message is true generally does not matter - simply the threat of action generally gets it removed as the ISP or operator has to protect themselves.

[Bantam]

From 1999;

Demon Internet has agreed to pay £15,000 to a scientist after failing to remove defamatory postings on newsgroups it hosted. The UK ISP will apologise to Dr Laurence Godfrey, as well as paying his legal costs, which could top £250,000. Add in its own legal fees and Demon is facing a bill of half a million smackers. Dr Godfrey alleged Demon had failed to remove defamatory material on a newsgroup it hosted. It related to a message posted three years ago on soc.culture.thai, purporting to come from him and containing damaging allegations of a personal nature. A second posting contained defamatory comments about Dr. Godfrey. Dr Godfrey told the BBC: "I am happy with the settlement. I don't think there is a right, in fact I'm quite sure there's no right, to libel other people on the Internet, to concoct fabricated allegations and try to destroy people's reputations." The case, which hinged on whether Demon could be treated as a publisher of the material, will have repercussions on other ISPs who will see it as a gagging order. Most host newsgroups and fear they could be found liable for any content posted by their users. Demon estimates that one million individual articles are posted in more than 35,000 active news groups each day. All well and good. But before we climb too high up the civil liberties flagpole, it is useful to recall just how incompetent Demon Internet was in dealing with Dr. Godfrey. He informed the company several times about the postings. Demon failed to respond. Now it is paying the price. ®

"Demon Internet statement Dr Laurence Godfrey vs Demon Internet (Thus plc) Thus today announces that it has reached an agreement with Dr Laurence Godfrey, which brings to a close the two cases he brought against its Internet Service Provider brand, Demon Internet. We can now draw a line under this issue and focus on serving our customers and building our business. Concluding this matter in a reasonable way is in the best interests of the company and its customers. Thus remains convinced that the law has not kept pace with the development of the Internet and will work with our colleagues in the industry to lobby for modernisation of the law. Thus will press the Government for recognition that ISPs should not be liable for the millions of items carried on the Internet every day. While we take our obligations very seriously, and act when informed of any defamatory or unsuitable material, it is contrary to common sense to make ISPs responsible for the millions of items carried on the Internet."

From a quick search on 'The Register'

[Juz]

Originally Posted by ahar

I think that a more sensible framework would be to hold the poster of the message liable

I think this is the right approach, however, as we have seen on YD recently, the thread titles (and I'm assuming here) the threads themselves can be changed by Mods.

Whilst it is done on YD for clarification sakes etc, it is possible that a thread could be changed by a Mod (I AM NOT SAYING THIS HAPPENS OR WOULD HAPPEN ON YD) leaving the original poster liable to legal action.

The original poster would have no proof of this change being made.

Juz

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Juz

I think this is the right approach, however, as we have seen on YD recently, the thread titles (and I'm assuming here) the threads themselves can be changed by Mods.

For clarity and correct representation - and to remove any assumption or doubt - Mods and Admins can change titles of threads: it's one of the more basic Admin functions of this forum's software - or any forum for that matter. It serves some very immediate needs.

Why they do this is also straight forward and in no way masked in mystery or any cloak-n-dagger nonsense.

Threads, posts, their titles and content can be changed for a number of reasons, most of them to do with mudane aspects, like them being in the wrong place. No biggy.

Other times posts simply contain inappropriate content - see here:

Originally Posted by Admin Gudelines of Posting on YD

We won't tolerate unlawful, defamatory, misleading (deliberately or otherwise) harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, racially offensive or other objectionable material outside the context of a serious and/or light-hearted discussion about diving and its, or other, more social aspects.

Another reason a thread's title might be changed is that sometimes they are posted with one word titles which are, for no deliberate reason, either misleading, unrepresentative, masking or obscuring the true or intended content's meaning. That being the case, a thread/post can go for hours without anyone bothering with it when the poster really needs advice, attention or help - sadly, though, they've not made that clear in their chosen title for the thread, hence it getting largely ignored.

Other aspects come into play as well - Search Capability. We have to remember that it is not, by any means, only YD'ers who search these boards; there's an obscure wee entity called the Internet which allows persons all over the world, via Search Engines, to arrive at YD to read further on topics which to them are, ahem, 'hot' or of interest. Threads with clear and/or a more prepresentative titles allows those persons to link to YD's content quicker and with greater ease. But again, you guys already know all this coz you've read These Posting Guidelines and especially this section:

Originally Posted by Admin Gudelines of Posting on YD

* Write clearly and well.
Remember that people from all around the world will be reading your post so keep your language as clear as you can, be sensitive to regional variations in the use of English and patient with other contributors who may be learning the language. Try to minimize spelling errors, keep your message short, and avoid writing in capitals because it looks like you are shouting and is also quite difficult to read on screen. Use descriptive subject lines so that you give people with limited time enough information to decide if they want to read further.

Originally Posted by Juz

Whilst it is done on YD for clarification sakes etc, it is possible that a thread could be changed by a Mod (I AM NOT SAYING THIS HAPPENS OR WOULD HAPPEN ON YD) leaving the original poster liable to legal action.

The original poster would have no proof of this change being made.

Juz

Very happy to hear it [comments in bold] too, Juz

In truth, I can not think (regardless of what ever voodoo and deliberate inaccuracies that any repetitive trolls, resident or now banned and aggrieved conspiracy-wallahs or gainsayers might post on this or other websites (and Lord knows they still do )), of any case where an YD Admin or Mod might have had occasion, cause, reason or desire to do what you describe above. Ask yourself: why would we? How might we benefit? Why would we want to leave oursleves open to any potential consequent legal exposure? If others want to do it on their websites, as they provably do, perhaps they and their ISPs will be hearing from any aggrieved party's lawyers in the fullness of time.

The only times I can think of where threads or posts might have been changed, locked, deleted, moved, edited etc. is where the poster(s) have either clearly fallen foul (for what ever reason) of the above guidelines on posting or deliberately set themselves against these boards and its members, its tone/mood, it community spirit, its Admins/Owners and the happy running of same for their own narrow and warped ends and agenda. And where that has happened, those now former members have been asked, before being removed, to redress their approach or leave the boards (unless they were an overt objectionable troll in which case it's a straight forward and unapologetic ban) - they made their own decisions and were treated accordingly. Their call at the end of the day. But this is the same with any web forum - those who refuse to abide by the house rules and continue to peddle their own one-trick pony personal agendas make themselves unwlecome, as they've lost the desire to be members of the community in which they've ceased to behave appropriately. It really is that simple.

Now, about those Moon landings? D'yer reckon they were faked...?

[Juz]

For clarification, my point was not directed at YD, or in fact any specific forum, just highlighting a potential flaw in a system that has the onus on the poster.

I think the onus should be on the poster, but the admins need to have power of deletion too. In many cases, deletion is not necessary if the title/thread can be altered for clarity. However, in general internet terms again, if admins have that power, then there is a doubt whether the poster made that exact post and therefore a legal loophole.

Juz

[And]

* Write clearly and well.
Remember that people from all around the world will be reading your post so keep your language as clear as you can, be sensitive to regional variations in the use of English and patient with other contributors who may be learning the language. Try to minimize spelling errors, keep your message short, and avoid writing in capitals because it looks like you are shouting and is also quite difficult to read on screen. Use descriptive subject lines so that you give people with limited time enough information to decide if they want to read further.

Funny enough, I've never read that. YD goes PC. Scary.

Whilst I am happy to endorse everything Bren has said above, as a member of the 'admin' team, I like the idea of giving people a certain amount of flexibility, after all, its meant to be fun . I would let you know if I thought your post/thread needed significant changes and would be happy to discuss it via PM, as I have done, on the very few times I have thought it necessary.

Andy

[Mal Bridgeman]

How far does this go.....?

Say for instance something was posted on Usenet which would get archived onto Google and a link was posted on YD....what would happen then?

For another instance, say someone posted something on a US freeweb host and a link was posted on YD....what would happen then?

There are lots and lots of freeweb hosters and lots and lots of newsgroups. I presume eventually it would be a contest between the resilience person/people who felt they were being defamed tracking down how to remove a post they felt defamed them versus the resilience of the people / person who they thought were defaming them being able to post new versions.

Any thoughts?

Rgrds
Mal