 Poster: A snowHead
|
One official reason given by the Ski Club of Great Britain (of which I'm a member) for closing its forum to non-members was a legal one - that the Club might suffer legal action arising from a defamatory posting.
There is news today of a US lawyer suing Yahoo for allegedly sheltering anonymous users who made damaging comments about him. This report is from BBC Online.
snowHeads is a forum which, although requiring registration, accepts nicknamed users. Indeed, our founder is one. Personally I don't have a problem with that, provided that people don't use anonymity to be abusive or dishonest. Real names are even more welcome.
The general and specific issues of internet forums and their liability are live and evolving. Sadly the Ski Club has not, to date, published its legal advice for members to ponder. I recall some material being published on this on snowHeads but I can't remember if this site has any liability if - for instance - an unmoderated libellous posting survives more than a short period on line. Is snowHeads immune from lawsuits? What's the latest thinking, moderators?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 6-08-04 16:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
And there goes freedom of speech...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Why? This very forum practicises a high level of freedom of speech, with moderators on hand to see that we're legal.
Unlimited freedom of speech simply means victory for the anarchist, the unhinged, the liar or the bully.
What's your model of freedom of speech, Fox?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
It seems only logical that the English legal system will eventually catch up with the nature of defamation of character on the internet but the current status of both statute and precedent appears to be generally unsatisfactory. I'm not aware of any test cases that have gone through in this country and it's likely that when it does occur an appeal court judge will probably using a 'distinguishing' model of precedent to create new law in this regard. Moreover (and forgive my ignorance), I'm not even certain if Parliament has deployed any stautory instruments in this connection but the ambiguity of this area does need urgent revision. I'm a little worried about the implications generally on the nature of free speech and it does seem ineviatble that as the internet becomes the dominant form of dissemination in the 21st century the law will need to take a view accordingly. My general advice would be to watch what we say on here........I know that's very difficult for a big gob like me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
It was encouraging to hear the Master of the Rolls (I think it was he) the other night referring to a judgement in the "compensation" case of a poor lad who had apparently broken his neck by diving into a shallow lake after a football. His case/or appeal against the lake owners failed. Whilst one has every sympathy for the lad (and note - I do not know the details) his Lordship was pointing out that common sense and sanity have been in danger of disappearing into lawyers' bank accounts, and that the judges were now trying to redress the balance towards the former. Can it be too optimistic to hope that such reasoned thinking will prevail in "internet" cases?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Of course, you can only successfully sue if the material published or spoken is untrue. This case involves a lawyer who went on line apparently to defend his client's reputation, but we don't know what his client was being accused of, we don't know what the lawyer said about it, and we don't know what his alleged abusers said about the lawyer. And we have no basis on which to assess the truth on either of the above.
Apart from that, everything is clear!
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Fri 6-08-04 17:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DG, what i mean is that the lawyer has chosen, rather than to respond on the message board, but to take someone to court. I do believe that freedom must be limited to be possessed, but on reading the report, the following stood out to me:
"His defence of his client led to him being subjected to name-calling by other message board users. "
Oh no, he was called names! That should be outlawed!
"He also alleges that Yahoo does nothing to give redress to people who have suffered abuse via its message boards. "
Well, the first step is that he should respond on the board. Message boards are discussion areas, where things are talked about. They cross the line between static information are fluid.
The second step is to contact the moderators, and ask for the data to be removed. They will want reasons - is it a lie? Is it offensive? If so, they can, at their discretion, remove it
The third step is to contact the website host, requesting that the site be closed because of the lies and offensive remarks being posted.
Now, my other point is: this can only apply to "Open" forums. If the website is private, then only those permitted to log in can see the comments, and as such, the posters must abide by the rules of the forum.
"He is now urging others who have been the target of such attacks over the past four years and made fruitless efforts to find out who posted messages or get them removed to join him in a class action lawsuit. "
I hope, that during the case, the posts made about him are made public, and his responses on the forum are also disclosed, and if anything which is a complete lie has been said about him, that it is redressed (purely by removing the post, NOT BY FINANCIAL RECOMPENSE), and that any other things which have been said about him, that HE must PROVE THEM TO BE INCORRECT.
Personally, I see this as a cynical and cowardly act by someone who is more interested in money and publicity, than allowing people to openly discuss, and disagree. Otherwise, the world has become like Jones' Farm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's good to hear that the Master of the Rolls can make such reasonable statements in a bid to stem the flood of litigation that is pervading our culture. Of course, we'd hope that judges and politicians recognise that the internet is a completely unique publishing forum, quite distinct from anything else that has preceded it. In this connection, it would be nice to think that as the law develops in this regard, hosts of discussion forums need only demonstrate that they have taken 'reasonable steps' to moderate their sites (ie, setting up traceable accounts and the like). To create a system of almost strict liability is, I think, asking too much of a publsihing format that is both dynamic, fluid and rapidly changing. Let's hope 'common sense' (whatever that is) prevails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
This from Reuters:
One user, a person using the screen name "mumioler" who had posted the original messages about Galton's client that started the dispute, wrote a series of new messages calling Galton a "shyster" and an "overly robust geezer that makes a living walking behind the elephant with a shovel."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A snow shovel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Sounds like a reasonably accurate description of a lawyer to me and apologies to any lawyers present, of a sensitve nature (oxymoron) who are liable to be offended by my comments, which I should stress, are my personal views and not directed toward any specific or particular lawyer. However if the cap fits.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
So are those last remarks by WTFH defamatory - will our American Lawyer friend read them and sue? Can WTFH PROVE that he (the lawyer) is more interested in money etc.? Would an action against us be, in the view of a Court after expert advocacy by our Counsel, proof of that very thing? Just in case the latter might be true, perhaps he would care to register first and discuss the matter......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Well, my case would be:
1. Has he attempted to prevent people from have open discussions and to disagree on matters?
2. Has he, and his company received publicity from this, which they would not otherwise have seen? (well, I, for one, have looked at their website, and given the comments about his email and phone number being published, it would imply others have contacted him)
3. Is he wanting money because someone called him a "shyster"? If so, will Gunners fans be sued for singing songs about David Beckham taking Victoria up the Arsenal? Will Bob Monkchalet be sued by Jef Wickes for saying that he can't cook? Will 2 Fingers be sued for saying I talk to myself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
So, now he, and his company are receiving further free publicity by you posting that link
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
With respect to the use of real names, if I had to use mine to post on a some discussion group, I simply wouldn't participate because there are too many kooks out there. Every expert on stalking and Internet abuse tells Internet users not to give out personally identifying information unless it is absolutely essential (ie, for their business).
As an example, look at the utterly devastating effect that just one kook has had on a formerly pleasant ski forum, rec.skiing.alpine. People have lost jobs, participants and their families have been repeatedly threatened and slandered, etc.
If you Google the names of many of the very decent people who innocently began posting on RSA using their real names but who have since "disagreed" with the main kook, you will see hundreds to thousands of hits with titles such as "Bob L is a pedophile", "Bev A supports terrorism", "Anthea K stole from me", etc. The reason is that the main kook has made it his business for the past several years to intentionally start thread after thread with such titles, so that in the future, if these people apply for a job, and the organization does an internet search on them, the HR people will run into these posts and become worried that there is something seriously wrong with the applicant, and it is simply not worth the effort to dig further into their backgrounds".
In a moderated forum, obviously, this is less of a problem, but cross-forum stalking exists - the main kook on RSA has found personally identifying information posted on a moderated forum and make use of it on an unmoderated one, or for other purposes - eg, each season, writing to the ski area where one of the people who "wronged" him works, making all sorts of outrageous claims against his target of the day.
Fortunately, I have never been on this guy's radar screen, and I intend to keep it that way. The lesson I have learned from watching this from afar is to NEVER give out personally identifying information, exactly what the experts suggest.
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
I read recently that a number of medics in the US are refusing to treat lawyers (and their families even) because they're fed up with being sued. Do NHS medics have the right to refuse treatment to whom they choose on such grounds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933
There are assassins and character assassins in our world, but I strongly believe that the fine individuals who moderate snowHeads would protect your reputation, Physicsman, and mine. You have nothing to fear but fear itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Thanks for the vote of confidence David  I think that Tom the Man of Physics' concerns are valid and understandable, although I also think that given enough determination and the amazing resource that is the internet it is relatively easy to find out who people "really are". I'm not (at least yet, touch wood!) so worried about "kooks", but what really gets my goat are spammers and other scumbags who are doing their best to destroy what is potentially one of the most empowering and liberating technologies ever devised. Consider previous totalitarian regimes' attitude to books for example.....
I have a particular personal interest here because my skicardiff domain has been "spoofed" for the past few weeks, with thousands of junk emails being sent, apparently from us. I can't believe anyone opens these things, or clicks on the "cheap software" links promised within, so they can't be in it for money.
Makes you wonder who these folk are doesn't it?
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 7-08-04 15:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
David Goldsmith, I nothing to fear but fear itself, and my boss googling on my name. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Why? This very forum practicises a high level of freedom of speech, with moderators on hand to see that we're legal.
|
multi talented though the moderators no doubt are I doubt they're experts in libel or free speech legislation across the jurisdictions the board is read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And nor would we (well speaking for myself anyway) claim to be. In this context I suppose that an "expert" is someone who is recognised by a Court as a credible witness whose opinion on matters within his/her expertise is taken into consideration but is frequently tested against alternative opinion(s) under cross examination. The point being that if something is not a matter of fact then it is a matter of opinion.
Moderators will take action where they see posting which gives them cause for concern, frequently after internal debate. We are not obsessive/compulsive readers however and, especially as the board grows larger, must rely on users to bring things to our attention, as pointed out in the "user guide".
Clearly, many things which may cause a problem to someone will be of a subjective nature (i.e. they will be opinion), and we can only respond in whatever seems the most appropriate way. We are always willing to engage in constructive dialogue if a genuine problem arises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| kevin mcclean wrote: |
| I'm not aware of any test cases that have gone through in this country |
Godfrey vs. Hallam-Baker?
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
Physicsman, I've followed the rec.skiing.alpine thing for years. The amazing thing was that the "kook" you refer to had been around the group for years as a seemingly affable guy. The chief protagonists had met a number of times and some had even gone on ski trips together. It was during their second big group meet that things blew up (although fairly innocuously) and since then all hell has broken loose. It's kept going for over 5 years ! With police involvement, court orders, lost jobs and a totally ruined newsgroup.
A salutary lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ...There are assassins and character assassins in our world, but I strongly believe that the fine individuals who moderate snowHeads would protect your reputation, Physicsman, and mine. You have nothing to fear but fear itself. |
DG, I very much appreciate your vote of confidence, but the issue is much larger in scope than simply maintaining one's reputation on Snowheads or EpicSki.
Just in the relatively limited arena of "ski forum kooks", the two people causing most of the problems in RSA have had enormous effects in the lives of numerous people whose only error was that they only wanted to talk about skiing on RSA. One particularly effective tactic of the kooks is that they can guarantee that anyone Googling people that the kooks don't like will find such trashy comments, that for the rest of their lives, these innocent people will now have to explain and re-explain why this material comes up on Google.
My decision comes down to pragmatics - a simple cost/benefit analysis. I feel that it costs me almost nothing to have no obvious link between my on-line ski forum alias and my real-world name. OTOH, there is the potential for a HUGE cost to me in terms of time, effort, awkwardness and embarrassment if I DON'T keep my real-world identity difficult to find, and for some unknown reason, completely independent of my actions (except that I may post on technical topics on RSA), the "kook" decides to set his sights on me. This is an insane, obsessive person - a stalker, and he is only one of many on the Internet.
IMO, no one in their right minds would ever intentionally open themselves up to such potential hassle unless there was a substantial benefit to having their real names known on topical discussion groups. Two examples of this are Seth Masia and Andrew McLean.
Seth is a fairly well known author of skiing and outdoor books here in the USA, and it is to his benefit to have an on-line "presence". He occasionally posts on RSA. His posts are completely on-topic, moderate, and helpful to skiing newbies. However, because Seth converses civially with people that "the kook" doesn't like, and probably because Seth represents a successful person, if you now Google (groups) on Seth's name, you will find 2090 posts, most of which bear titles like:
Seth Masia Supports Terrorism
Seth Masia, Amoral A-hole
Seth Masia Ignores the Crimes of His Friends
Seth Masia is a bas tard!
Seth Masia Supports Real-life Harassment
Google (groups) "Andrew McLean", the well known ski mountaineer, and you will find 2430 posts, many with titles like:
Andrew McLean, Liar-Slanderer-Thief-Dumbf-ck
Boycott Black Diamond, employer of Internet Terrorist Andrew ...
Andrew McLean, Pathological Liar
Andrew McLean Commits Perjury
Andrew McLean Whines About Being Caught
Andrew McLean, Mountain Hero and Perjurer
Andrew McLean, Terrorist
Criminals stalk and harass again, typical of Andrew McLean
The Lies of Andrew McLean Live On
"Andrew McLean conceived and led the expedition that got Alex Lowe killed..."
Sorry, DavidG, but I just don't need this sort of thing in my life. This is not an area where lofty principles come into play. If I see an obviously demented, aggressive person ahead of me on the street, I will cross to the other side.
DG, if you still are not convinced about the importance of keeping real-world identifying information off the web, please Google(web) using the search strategy: {"Internet stalking" recommendations experts} and read a few of the articles. I think it will open your eyes to situations and people so bizarre that ordinary folk have a hard time believing the problem exists and is so widespread.
| brian wrote: |
| ...The amazing thing was that the "kook" you refer to had been around the group for years as a seemingly affable guy... |
My understanding is that even in the early days of RSA that you refer to, the main "kook" was perceived as being pretty "far-out", but as with many groups where the people are first getting to know each other, everybody was on their best behavior, suspicions were non-existent, and his oddities were initially tolerated.
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Physicsman, that's very interesting indeed.
Surely it is a job for the law enforcement agencies to bring these stalkers and character assassins to court? Have they been asked to investigate and prosecute? Libel which alleges criminality is very serious indeed.
What have RSA done about this?
I'd be very interested to hear Seth Masia's views on what you say. I've met him, and read many of his fine articles. It is outrageous that he is being subjected to this.
Last night, on a snowHead thread, I noted an unpleasant personal attack on one of our contributors and a member of his family. I haven't had a chance this morning to see whether it has been dealt with but I agree with you wholeheartedly that we can't bury our (snow)heads in a snowdrift over this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too used to follow RSA from afar, with the rare tentative comment. (Whatever happened to RSA moderated, by the way?) Although RSA is a mainly US newsgroup, this kind of thing is by no means limited to the other side of the Pond. I have seen the beginnings of similar compulsive obsessive stalking behaviour in a UK-based newsgroup, where the innocent target was a scientist who had innocently included his details in his sig for all to see.
I think it is almost certain that, sooner or later, this will happen on snowHeads. DG is quite right to raise this issue here (sorry - hadn't noticed it when I began a similar thread over on 'Suggestions'....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I think one of the other Moderators is in Law. (OK that's a pretty wide field)
If I'm right, would he care to comment ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
| Physicsman wrote: |
My understanding is that even in the early days of RSA that you refer to, the main "kook" was perceived as being pretty "far-out", but as with many groups where the people are first getting to know each other, everybody was on their best behavior, suspicions were non-existent, and his oddities were initially tolerated.
Tom / PM |
Well yes, all that "Holy Church of Vail" stuff was fairly eccentric but rsa had a fair number of off the wall posters. He didn't stand out that much at the time. I have been totally amazed by how it's ended up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
A couple of thoughts here - many companies (including my own and most if not all of the major international law firms with whom we do business) publish people profiles/CV's on their web sites for all to access. Clearly, real names are used.
The incident to which David refers was dealt with at the time but, presumably depending on the psychology of the individual concerned and the motivation for the attack, we should not perhaps be surprised if it recurs.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - keep up the good work guys 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Physicsman, that's very interesting indeed.
Surely it is a job for the law enforcement agencies to bring these stalkers and character assassins to court? Have they been asked to investigate and prosecute? Libel which alleges criminality is very serious indeed.
|
Already happened. Scott Abraham had an injunction against him from posting to RSA.
http://www.menweb.org/gagorder.htm
http://www.menweb.org/gagpetit.htm
http://www.menweb.org/spdflame.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,32550,00.html
| Quote: |
What have RSA done about this?
|
Nothing, RSA doesn't exist as an entity. It is a Usenet newsgroup which is distributed over a worldwide network of servers. Still see the Godfrey vs. Hallam-Baker case I mentioned above to see what individuals can do about it in the UK.
The Scott Abraham case stems out of a row about free lift passes. But it is now very very serious involving loss of jobs and livelyhoods for those involved. There is more than one side to this dispute although I am totally against these flamewars whatever the reason.
For those who are interested here is a video of Abraham at Deer Valley:-
http://www.terrymorse.com/ski/trip/dv9812/dv9812_small.mov
Still the RSA flamewar is pretty mild... if you want to see a real flamewar do a Web search for the Internet's number 1 newsloon: Ray Gordon Parker. Then thank your lucky stars you don't live in on the same continent as these people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
