 Poster: A snowHead
|
The Independent reported today that the discussion forum of the Sunday Herald had been closed down and the Sunday Herald forced to pay George Robertson damages after they had been taken to court for a remark made by an annonymous poster on their forum with regard to the Dunblane massacre: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=560074
Presumably better moderation on their forum could have avoided this - something that sounds similar to SCGB's forum where little moderation was undertaken and where SCGB was concerned about future litigation.
Any thoughts on this and whether U could be held responsible for our posts 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
More views on this matter from the BBC.
The following part is encouraging....
| Quote: |
Mr Robertson was certainly entitled to sue the Herald. The claims made about him were serious and unsupported.
They were made in a forum over which the Herald exerted a degree of editorial control.
They were not noticed for three weeks, and were only removed when Mr Robertson pointed them out.
He may have been badly advised to take action, since the result has been that millions of people know about what was said instead of just a few hundred.
But he was within his rights under the law, a law which has to apply online as well as offline.
And the fact that the Herald has settled with him is neither a disaster for free speech nor a sign that the libel lawyers are going to ruin the net for all of us.
It is simply an indication that responsible publishing means taking care of what is said on your site, even if you are only the host of a comments page. |
Robertson's lawyer is quoted by The Scotsman as saying:
| Quote: |
| "The paper had a forum over which it claimed to exercise editorial control. A message posted on that site made unfounded and scurrilous accusations against Lord Robertson. There clearly was no editorial control. Having denied responsibility, the Sunday Herald then saw fit to republish the defamatory accusations to a much wider audience. The case was settled out of court and will not set a legal precedent. But it will send out a clear message to those who don’t have full control of what appears on their websites: they cannot hide from their legal responsibilities." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Interesting term that "degree of editorial control" - the lawyers will love that one. Does that mean that a completely "uncontrolled" site is immune? How much "control" has to be exhibited before liability ensues? What exactly is "control"?
Closing the forum completely does seem to be an extreme reaction - however one would think that a newspaper would have had the nonce to moderate its forum if it was going to set one up. If there were only 400 users then it does not seem to have been very successful - another reason for closure perhaps?
This has been discussed before but we are attemping to do as much as seems to be "reasonably practicable" in terms of moderation. We hope that this will satisfy the lawyers. If anyone disagrees please let us know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Just read PG's update - so it is to be "full control" is it? What is that exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
From the second of PG's links .....
| Quote: |
11) set up techniques (software/script) facilitating or allowing the application of the recommendations defined in points 7 ), 8 ) and 9 ) and allowing authors of messages to refuse to have them referred to by search engines;
|
Does phpbb have this facility ? I recall at one time Admin was working hard to increase the site's exposure to search engines. Now a respected (French ?) body recommends we should have the facility to block Google and the like from indexing on our own posts. I just cannot see how this can work - even if it doesn't index on anything I have posted as a result of a 'blocker', Google could still point to a thread in which I've participated so my posts would still be readable, just less directly.
And another quote from the end of the article ................
| Quote: |
Protection of personal data
In conformity with article 34 of the January 6, 1978 law on "Computers and Liberties", you have the right to access, modify, rectify and suppress your personal data. |
Should we tell SCGB Open Forum about that ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that "personal data" does not include the contents of your posts kuwait_ian 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True, Alan, but if there is such a thing as a personal profile in there (can't remember), I cannot get at that either, AFAIK. If I changed my email address, how would I do it ? Not that I want to, but how do you unregister from SCGB ?? (sorry - off topic)
Maybe on topic, if I could alter my username on SCGB - and as we know it was as secure as a chocolate colander - what does that do to any legal liability. At least on snowHeads, usernames are changed only by Admin and therefore have an audit trail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| kuwait_ian wrote: |
... Not that I want to, but how do you unregister from SCGB ?? (sorry - off topic)
Maybe on topic, if I could alter my username on SCGB - and as we know it was as secure as a chocolate colander - what does that do to any legal liability. At least on snowHeads, usernames are changed only by Admin and therefore have an audit trail. |
AFIK, you are registered with the SCGB site by way of being a member. So, if you cease your membership, I guess you cease your registration.
You can change your profile within the SCGB site - but by reference to your membership number - which in turn probably links into your credit card or bank details, I guess the club can be reasonably certain who you are.
I don't think such positive identification for each snowhead is available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Nick - I'm a non-member. Just a 'registered non-member' on their web site - whatever than means ??? Now the open forum has gone, I suspect it is no longer needed.
< Edit - they say you have to be registered to get access to certain areas like snow reports and weather >
I just checked by starting to register another different email address. All it holds is your email address, 1st name, lastname and gender stored in a cookie - there is no other personal information, so I have no further complaint on that score. But there doesn't seem to be a way to deregister, short of sending them an email.
Re ID - I suppose changing usernames on the old open forum didn't affect the underlying email address but even these can be anonymous. So perhaps their legal advice to close the unmoderated open forum was valid. But we've done that to death elsewhere.............
I believe our registration process with a confirmation email is more secure and less open to ID grabbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| PG wrote: |
"Full control" is Robertson's lawyer's interpretation
|
That's my point PG - lawyers using phrases like "full control". Since nobody knows what this means they might, allegedly, hope for an highly paid opportunity to argue it against their highly paid colleagues in front of a highly paid judge in order to obtain a "ruling", which will then apply (unless overturned in another expensive action) in a "blanket" fashion, possibly regardless of the practicalities.
You could argue that, barring misprints, an editor has "full control" over what appears in a printed publication. What does it mean in a medium like this?
Of course, "control" can be exercised through deletion/modification, but how long does an "offending" item have to exist before such control measures are taken in order for an "offence" to occur?
A lawyers' dream 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Alan Craggs, With you. And there is an issue here with respect to unmoderated forums, such as the usenet newsgroups. If Internet freedom of speech allows these to exist unchallenged, then the ludicrous solution to the problem of editorial control failures would be not to have any moderation of this and similar forums at all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's right - it seems that it was only because the newspaper claimed or was deemed to have a "degree" of control that it was held liable, as far as I can see.
But then, if I were a lawyer, I might argue that whoever has their hand on the mains plug has absolutely "full control" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I don't know what this person said about George Robertson, but I can understand why litigation happened. This shooting of schoolchildren - and haven't we seen enough by now - was one of the most appalling tragedies this nation has had to endure. If it was used to create yet further misery (George Robertson was the MP for Dunblane at the time, as I recall) one can understand his upset.
If the key fault was that the website kept the defamation posted up too long, then they were stupid and negligent.
If we, on snowHeads can't police ourselves as a community, with free speech moderated by fairness and an understanding of truth, then we're done for.
But I think this is perfectly achievable.
Please always report postings that concern you to the moderators. More moderators will be needed as the community grows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
More moderators will be needed as the community grows.
|
and I see you've gone 'green' recently, David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
