MooseRacer

Given the standard disclaimer at the bottom of the SN site about Scoobynet not being responsible for the content of the posts....is Scoobynet still liable in some way if potentially libelous posts are made?

Tim-Grove

in a word......NO

MooseRacer

I suppose it could be argued that Scoobynet should show due diligence in it's moderating (or something ) but the above reason is as good as any for removing libelous posts.

Tim-Grove

If you were in a high street shop and a certain footballer walked in and you decided to publicly take the **** out of him in front of everyone else in that shop, would the shop you were standing in be liable for your comments. I think not how can they control what you are saying??? May be the person but not the shop.

Tim.

andrew6321

why is it libellous to discuss an accusation made by a third party, in an open public forum?

Tim-Grove

Not saying you were wrong in locking it but i dont think SN would be liable.

Tim.

ChrisB

So why don't the newspaper's just publish the story then Tim? They have much more money to spend on legal fees than ScoobyNet.

andrew6321

that ain't the point. if it was, every pub in the land would get sued, because it was being discussed at the bar...

Neil Smalley

Tim,
In that case It would'nt be libel, it'd be slander.

As I understand it, SN is bound by the same laws that newspapers, magazines and TV's are. These are all 'public forums' I don't say the law makes sense only that's it is what it is.

I really hope they do change the law, as there are so many instances where it's very hard to control content in a fair and free way. But until they do, we have to do our best to keep it.

Tim-Grove

Exactly andrew

MooseRacer

Some brief searching yields the creator of a defamatory WWW page AND the owner of the WWW server on which it is based;
potentially, under certain circumstances, the creator of a link to a defamatory WWW page where that link will have the effect of spreading the defamation..

As far as I understand a BBS could be found guilty of distributing defamtory statements, but hey, I'm not a lawyer

ChristianR

iTrader: (1)

missed the football thing - can someone drop me an email what it is about.. is it another becks story?

Neil Smalley

As chris points out, newspapers have big money lawyers who can give the libelled party a hefty out of court settlement, in additon they can cause more damage to someone reputation. Which is why, increasingly people are turning towards BBS's as targets to make an example of. I,e pick on the little guy and create the legal precident so that the big guys fall in line.

Brendan Hughes

Tim, in the eyes of the law the shop is not a "publisher". SN is.

I'm not qualified to talk about it, I'll assume that the bods consulted are.

Tim-Grove

The law in this country is stupid “freedom of speech” my backside.

andrew6321

BUT....the source of the allegations is NOT scoobynet - that is the point that I think Tim is trying to make. And me...

Classic case of 'shooting the messenger'. I still think that SN is taking itself far too seriously here. At the end of the day, this is a BBS about scoobs, not the f**in' Daily Telegraph...

Amen Corner

People seem to be confusing two separate, although inter-related issues here.

Under the general laws against defamation, anybody who publishes defamatory material risks being sued by the person who has been libelled. There are a number of defences to a claim in libel, the most obvious of which is that the alleged libel material is, in fact, true. If material is found to have been defamatory however, and there is no available defence, then the court may award damages. In assessing the level of damages that would be awarded to the claimant a court would have to take into account his/ her reputation and the extent to which that had suffered as a result of the defamatory remarks. Unusually, as a matter of English law (in fact, specific to defamation cases) a jury will decide the level of damages which is why they are so unpredictable.

This is a gross over-simplification of the law, largely because I've got to go to a rather long meeting in 5 minutes time and so this is the only chance I will get to post today, but that is the basics of it.

As a separate issue, it is always open to somebody to get an injunction against someone else when it is perceived that there is a real threat of that person committing a tort (such as defamation) against them. The consequences of breaching that injunction would be a contempt of court, which is a strong sanction against anyone doing it.

MarkO is absolutely correct in te other thread when he says that the injunction is only binding on the newspaper concerned, but the general law against defamation will still apply to everyone else.

Happy to answer specifics on this (though probably not until tomorrow now) if anyone wants

Brendan Hughes

One other point, already made about a year ago; can webbie or the mods please tell us approx how many times in the last year SN has been threatened with libel action? ISTR the figure given last time was 1-2 each month. Work out when you started reading SN and then how many times you might have lost it between then and now.

We've had this discussion before, you don't even need to be successful to crush this BBS, just persistent enough that all the volunteers running it can no longer be arsed to fight against a highly paid and dedicated legal team. I've not met Simon or the crew, but I'd bet that their resources don't match those of any premier league footballer, pop star, International Motors, or whichever party might claim defamation. Yeah yeah it's "not fair", but that's life in the real world.

Chris L

Brendon - Simon could probably give you the exact figures, but it is enough to say that it has happened on a fairly regular basis. At least with some form of moderation, you can least argue that you are taking 'reasonable steps' to regulate the content.

It is never going to be an easy job with such a popular site - Scoobynet receives 16 million + hits a month, that means it is pretty well known. We have to err on the side of caution, which is a shame, but we have no real choice.

Chris

ex-webby

Hi All

Just to clear this up.

1) ScoobyNet is not NECESSARILY liable.
2) Disclaimer at the bottom does not get rid of ALL problems, but helps

we have had countless legal issues on scoobynet but none have gone to court as our case remains strong enough due to the combination of everything, including the disclaimer, the history of due diligence, etc, etc

All the best

Simon

Chris L

Taken from the Daily Telegraph this morning:

"BBC Blunder over footballer

The BBC launched an investigation yesterday into how a footballer at the centre of a kiss-and-tell story was named on one of its websites despite a court injunction banning his identification.

Several visitors to the BBC's Celebdaq message board named the Premier League player on Tuesday, four days after he successfully went to the High Court to prevent the media from identifying him or the woman involved.

Celebdaq encourages the public to exchange gossip about celebrities, but the corporation admitted that it did not vet messages until they were published. Celebdaq is a website and interactive television show on BBC3 in which people play a stock market-style game, buying "shares" in celebrities. Their market value increases with the newspaper column inches they attract.

The BBC admitted yesterday that it only pre-vets messages for potential libels or offensive remarks on some of its websites, including those for children. Messages sent to Celebdaq are only checked after they appear, to avoid delays.

The BBC is the only media outlet to break the injunction and could be sued over the error, which has been rectified.

Message boards are increasingly popular with internet users, but problems over editorial control have arisen before and several legal rulings have established that the internet is also subject to libel laws.

Last year a teacher successfully sued the school reunion website Friends Reunited over a former pupil's libellous remarks.

The gossip website Popbitch was forced to remove a rumour about David Beckham posted anonymously after the Manchester United and England footballer's legal advisers threatened to sue."

Chris

Amen Corner

The government has vaguely promised to do something about the uncertainty in this area, but keeps getting distracted by things it regards as more important. There was a Law Commission paper on the subject published last December, specifically addressing the question of whether the ISP or a BBS should be regarded as a "publisher", issues over limitation periods (very difficult to provae or disprove anything when a site is updated and the old one not archived) and jurisdictional issues. A number of very sensible proposals were made in this paper, but no doubt it will sit on some minister's desk gathering dust.

It's hard to blame the law for being an *** on this one. The basic principles of defamation have held good for a very long time; the levels of damages have sometimes been suspect but then as I said above, that's because defamation damages are decided by a jury rather than by people who actually know anything about the law.

The problem with defamation on the internet is that it introduces a whole lot of issues that have never had to be addressed before. Is the BBS analagous to a shop which sells defamatory material, as someone has suggested above, or is it more analagous to the newspaper in which somebody publishes a defamatory article?

The blame here lies entirely at the feet of this government which has singularly failed to acknowledge that there is a genuine need for new legislation on this point to address issues which previously didn't exist, and would prefer to spend its time creating confusion in areas where the law has held good for hundreds of years and the ground rules haven't changed.

Ooops, better get off my soap box now and get back into the Muppets

Brendan Hughes

Thanks guys. As AC briefly mentioned, yet another problem is jurisdiction; once you've sorted out whether you think it's like a shop or a newspaper, you still have to work out whether it's covered by British libel laws, US libel laws (40 billion dollar damages anyone?) or, erm, North Korean libel laws. I didn't follow Yahoo France and the **** memorabilia case, perhaps it came up with something.

We did a seminar or two on cybercrime, and I feebly ended up concluding that the industry has to be self-regulating, as I didn't have a clue how you would assert jurisdiction otherwise.

..so CARRY ON MODDING, guys!

Dizzy

New headline just in!!
"Amen Corner in serious post shocker!"

Neil Smalley

Sadly Yes.

It's not how we'd want it, but after a number of legal cases it is the case. The disclaimer is there to help our case should SN be sued, not prevent it.

Even fighting a court case can be horribly expensive, even if you win. So we take the view it's better to prevent it that deal with it afterwards.

Personally I wish the law was different, but it's not.. Yet

Tim, if you have any reason why you say no. Can you let simon the webmaster know. We've taken legal advice and that has said yes we are. But if you can help, please do.



[Edited by Neil Smalley - 3/5/2003 5:05:50 PM]

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

If an allegation is PUBLISHED then the PUBLISHER can be sued in court for libel (if appropriate obviously).

Scoobynet PUBLISHES threads & is deemed a PUBLISHER in the eyes of the law. No use saying its "on the internet" 'cos that battle has already been sorted - Demon Internet Vs Some Chap & Demon lost as publishers of article, even though it was put up by someone else but held on their servers.

Therefore Scoobynet (Ltd) can be sued for damages

[Edited 'cos of desire to drink in conjunction with the word publish ]

[Edited by Puff The Magic Wagon! - 3/5/2003 5:20:40 PM]