..... in your choice of words when posting on the site.

I have just seen another posting in one of the bank threads that has been edited by a mod for the use of the word "stolen"

The word stolen implies that the banks have comitted a criminal act in taking the charges and this is not the case. The issue is one of civil and not criminal law and use of words that suggest criminal activity could result in a claim for libel against the owners of this site. Not a nice thought. Bankfodder and Dave have taken a lot upon themselves to get this thing going, not to mention the mods and site helpers who have enough to do without dealing with stupid comments, even if they are made out of ignorance.

Sorry for the rant but it would be a shame to see the site go pear shaped because of the misguided activities of a few people. We are all disgruntled bank customers so lets work together without giving them any ammunition to fire back.

Paul

Here Here Paul, good post!

Well said!!

Just to add that it is my personal belief that some of the banks have committed offences under the theft act. The problem is is we would have to prove it to be able to defend a libel action. Unfortunately this would be virtually impossible.

We don't seem to be very popular with the banks (I wonder why) and the banks are likely to try and use any method possible to shut us down. This is likely to take the form of either bribery (Won't work), or litigation against the site for something.

Please please please do not use the words theft, thief, thieve, stole, stolen, robbing, robbed, robbers in any posts on the forum. If you see any such posts can you please PM a moderator.

Just to add that it is my personal belief that some of the banks have committed offences under the theft act. The problem is is we would have to prove it to be able to defend a libel action. Unfortunately this would be virtually impossible.

Indeed. The good faith belief we all share that the bank are "stealing" is not a defence. Even truth is not an absolute defence to libel if what is said is still defamatory.

Thanx guys this has been really informative especially for a newbie like me, i'm glad i spotted this thread and read thru it, i just hope other newbies will do the same, i will endeavour not to make any mistakes, you never know who could be reading thru these.

..... in your choice of words when posting on the site.

 

I have just seen another posting in one of the bank threads that has been edited by a mod for the use of the word "stolen"

 

The word stolen implies that the banks have comitted a criminal act in taking the charges and this is not the case. The issue is one of civil and not criminal law and use of words that suggest criminal activity could result in a claim for libel against the owners of this site. Not a nice thought. Bankfodder and Dave have taken a lot upon themselves to get this thing going, not to mention the mods and site helpers who have enough to do without dealing with stupid comments, even if they are made out of ignorance.

 

Sorry for the rant but it would be a shame to see the site go pear shaped because of the misguided activities of a few people. We are all disgruntled bank customers so lets work together without giving them any ammunition to fire back.

 

Paul

I agree that people should be careful about what they type, but that is true in everything we say. However, the forum owners are not liable, under the law they are not considered as publishers, they are a neutral party and are not responsible for the posts of their users.

The very worst that can happen is they can receive a request to remove the "dubious" content, which they have the choice of whether or not to comply.

Just to clarify.

Paladine

I agree that people should be careful about what they type, but that is true in everything we say. However, the forum owners are not liable, under the law they are not considered as publishers, they are a neutral party and are not responsible for the posts of their users.

Care to back that one up? Just that the precedent so far is that if you write an article in a magazine and someone cries libel, the victim is clear to sue you, your editor, your publisher, their distributors, and the retailers who sell that month's edition of the magazine. Successfully, I might add. As I recall, Demon Internet lost their case, filed a bogus appeal and settled.

The only way CAG might escape such a claim was if there were a notice somewhere saying almost no effort is made as to moderation, thereby denying editorial control, and liability. Even this is not a guaranteed defence.

Forum owners are, indeed liable for the content on the forum as they are publishers. The little amount of statute law and all of the common law on libel were formed before internet publishing started. There has been relatively little testing of the issue in court as many have been settled before court but many lawyers agree that libel could be used.

Whether it would be provable in court or not, the owners of this site have decided to protect the interests of Reclaim The Right (the sites legal entity) by moderating potentially libellous comment.

Forum owners are, indeed liable for the content on the forum as they are publishers. The little amount of statute law and all of the common law on libel were formed before internet publishing started. There has been relatively little testing of the issue in court as many have been settled before court but many lawyers agree that libel could be used.

 

Whether it would be provable in court or not, the owners of this site have decided to protect the interests of Reclaim The Right (the sites legal entity) by moderating potentially libellous comment.

I have to disagree. ISPs and internet services are not classed as publishers, it is covered under ammendments to the telecommunications act and was specifically revised to prevent embarrassing and highly consequential losses in cases of child abuse/child pornography (an area I am somewhat of an expert in after working for many years with law enforcement around the globe tracking down and prosecuting child pornography traffickers who used the internet for moving their "wares").

Internet services and ISPs fall under a "Good Faith" clause. They are required to remove offending data from their networks if it is reported to them, if they fail to do so, they may be held liable, but no action may be taken until after a take down notice has been served and the "defendent" has failed to act.

As for the Demon argument mentioned above, which particular case was being referred to? Demon internet won the earliest ruling based around this premise many years ago when they were sued on the premise that they were publishers of works which were infringing copyrights on their "usenet" service. It is this single ruling which still protects ISPs to this day for not filtering illegal content off their usenet servers.

Paladine

As for the Demon argument mentioned above, which particular case was being referred to? Demon internet won the earliest ruling based around this premise many years ago when they were sued on the premise that they were publishers of works which were infringing copyrights on their "usenet" service.

That's copyright. We're referring to libel. You're looking for the Laurence Godfrey case.

I have to disagree. ISPs and internet services are not classed as publishers, it is covered under ammendments to the telecommunications act and was specifically revised to prevent embarrassing and highly consequential losses in cases of child abuse/child pornography (an area I am somewhat of an expert in after working for many years with law enforcement around the globe tracking down and prosecuting child pornography traffickers who used the internet for moving their "wares").

 

Internet services and ISPs fall under a "Good Faith" clause. They are required to remove offending data from their networks if it is reported to them, if they fail to do so, they may be held liable, but no action may be taken until after a take down notice has been served and the "defendent" has failed to act.

 

As for the Demon argument mentioned above, which particular case was being referred to? Demon internet won the earliest ruling based around this premise many years ago when they were sued on the premise that they were publishers of works which were infringing copyrights on their "usenet" service. It is this single ruling which still protects ISPs to this day for not filtering illegal content off their usenet servers.

 

Paladine

This may or may not be true, however, even to defend a libel case would put us out of business. We simply couldn't afford to defend and we'd have to go bankrupt - and that means the site would be out of operation for an indefinite period. It's simply not worth taking any risk with.

We were threatened about 1 month ago, and we duly amended the offending post and the complainant seemed happy with that - for the time being. It may seem like we're stifling 'free speech', although free speach does not truly exist in the UK (I did consider using a US hosting company which would have *fixed* the problem of libel/defamation etc...).

Incidently (and very off topic) how did you get into chasing down the **** that peddle child porn? I'd love to track them down and make sure they got what they deserved - although I'd probably be too emotionally involved and lose my rag with them if I ever met one!

This may or may not be true, however, even to defend a libel case would put us out of business. We simply couldn't afford to defend and we'd have to go bankrupt - and that means the site would be out of operation for an indefinite period. It's simply not worth taking any risk with.

 

We were threatened about 1 month ago, and we duly amended the offending post and the complainant seemed happy with that - for the time being. It may seem like we're stifling 'free speech', although free speach does not truly exist in the UK (I did consider using a US hosting company which would have *fixed* the problem of libel/defamation etc...).

 

Incidently (and very off topic) how did you get into chasing down the **** that peddle child porn? I'd love to track them down and make sure they got what they deserved - although I'd probably be too emotionally involved and lose my rag with them if I ever met one!

I am not disputing your entitlement to moderate and certainly don't see it as censorship, this board is your property you can do with it as you wish. We are given the priveledge to use it, nothing more. I was merely trying to point out that internet services and ISP are covered under "Good Faith" so long as they act on offending material once it has been brought to their attention. I agree, the last thing you want to do is spend a lot of time dealing with written complaints, you offer much more to the community here on other fronts, and having to divert attention to such matters would inevitably effect the quality of this community.

As for my work against child pornography, its a long and very personal story and probably not appropriate for these boards. It is incredibly difficult to remain objective in such endeavours, but at the same time, it is incredibly important. The second you allow it to become subjective, you are unable to do your job effectively and it can cause severe damage emotionally, as you can probably imagine.

I eventually moved away from it as my objectivity was starting to get shakey and the risks involved, had I let it become a persona crusade, to me, and my family, would have been very high.

Paladine

I think we are getting away from the original point that I was making and debating the legal issues isn't really necessary.

If all forum users refrain from using any language that could be construed in any way as libellous, the legal arguments don't arise and the site owners will never have to be tested in court.

It's that simple really!

well I just came across a post which made a libellous comment about the bank, and reported it, however I decided afterwards to do a search on the word 'thieving' and, as it is so often misspelt - 'theiving'. Numerous posts came up and I wondered why the mods aren't doing searches such as this themselves to delete the offending words?

Could also use the word censor for more obviously libelous words like thieving etc..probably not on stolen though as it may be used in a different context in some threads...

I wondered why the mods aren't doing searches such as this themselves to delete the offending words?

Site Helpers do a lot of searching for liable wording, as well as welcome newbies, as well as give guidance on the site, the wording you found is more than lately what has been written after an approx 50 that could have been edited in any 24 hours, the links you have viewed may well be on a list now waiting on editing tomorrow.

This is an on going job it doesnt stop, as long as there are posts there are checks being made. have you stood back an looked at the size of this site lately its massive....

Could also use the word censor for more obviously libelous words like thieving etc..probably not on stolen though as it may be used in a different context in some threads...

Robbing , Robbed, thieving, stolen.

All come under. Insurance threads, car threads, jokes.

Site Helpers do a lot of searching for liable wording, as well as welcome newbies, as well as give guidance on the site, the wording you found is more than lately what has been written after an approx 50 that could have been edited in any 24 hours, the links you have viewed may well be on a list now waiting on editing tomorrow.

 

This is an on going job it doesnt stop, as long as there are posts there are checks being made. have you stood back an looked at the size of this site lately its massive....

hi breadline, this wasn't an attack on the mods or site helpers, or saying that they don't help in the other ways you've pointed out, and I can't see why you jumped on it as such. I was merely wondering if this kind of search went on already and attempting to offer some constructive help with the situation. The posts I saw were not that recent but I have reported them anyway.

Bong if that was a jump on you hun you would be flat right now, and it would of contained many of these!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and many of these ABCDEFG and many of these:mad: so im confussed where is the post inany way as you discribe, i may of omitted one of these so there have 3 and a chill pill

very nice

I was just wondering how many libelous words are in this thread alone!! Lol.

None, because they're not being used in a context of describing someone.

You are far too clever. ;-)