Scoobynet Libel protection policy
18 February 2002, 05:37 PM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not as a moderator, but interested party...
More verification of scoobynet's thread policy if any was required.
It's a shame it comes to this, but it just goes to show you cant be too careful
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24111.html
A retired schoolteacher has won a libel case after a former pupil used the popular Friends Reunited web site to allege that he had been sacked.
When Jim Murray, 68, complained Friends Reunited removed the offending posting, but refused to apologise for the remarks made by Jonathan Spencer.
Instead, Mr Murray took his case against Mr Spencer to the small claims court – and won after he failed to turn-up.
The ex-teacher could walk away with as much as £5,000 in damages but claims that the prospect of a pay-out wasn't behind his actions.
"I didn't give 32 years' unblemished service in teaching for someone to do that to me," Mr Murray told the Doncaster Star.
"It's not the money, it's the principle that counts. I just want people to know that I was not sacked," he said.
A spokeswoman for Friends Reunited said that it takes abuse of the site "very seriously" and claims that instances such as this are "very rare".
"If we receive any report of an offending message, it is promptly removed from the site and we review it. On this occasion, we removed the message as soon as practicable after it was brought to our attention," she said.
Last year Friends Reunited suspended its bulletin boards after teachers complained that it was being used to post malicious comments by former pupils.
More verification of scoobynet's thread policy if any was required.
It's a shame it comes to this, but it just goes to show you cant be too careful
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24111.html
A retired schoolteacher has won a libel case after a former pupil used the popular Friends Reunited web site to allege that he had been sacked.
When Jim Murray, 68, complained Friends Reunited removed the offending posting, but refused to apologise for the remarks made by Jonathan Spencer.
Instead, Mr Murray took his case against Mr Spencer to the small claims court – and won after he failed to turn-up.
The ex-teacher could walk away with as much as £5,000 in damages but claims that the prospect of a pay-out wasn't behind his actions.
"I didn't give 32 years' unblemished service in teaching for someone to do that to me," Mr Murray told the Doncaster Star.
"It's not the money, it's the principle that counts. I just want people to know that I was not sacked," he said.
A spokeswoman for Friends Reunited said that it takes abuse of the site "very seriously" and claims that instances such as this are "very rare".
"If we receive any report of an offending message, it is promptly removed from the site and we review it. On this occasion, we removed the message as soon as practicable after it was brought to our attention," she said.
Last year Friends Reunited suspended its bulletin boards after teachers complained that it was being used to post malicious comments by former pupils.
18 February 2002, 05:59 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. I heard about this a while back, when it seemed that the website might get sued.
However it seems from the story that it was only the poster who got sued.
Does that mean that the website is in no way liable after all, or just that it never got tested in court?
It would also seem to indicate that people can only be successfully sued in these circumstances on matters of fact rather than statements of opinion.
Any lawyers out there care to comment?
However it seems from the story that it was only the poster who got sued.
Does that mean that the website is in no way liable after all, or just that it never got tested in court?
It would also seem to indicate that people can only be successfully sued in these circumstances on matters of fact rather than statements of opinion.
Any lawyers out there care to comment?
19 February 2002, 12:04 AM
#7
However, the flip side of the problem is that once you start removing "undesirable" posts, it can be seen as exercising editorial control. If another such post remains, it can be deemed to have been acceptable to the "editor" and the publisher (in this case Scoobynet) can be held liable.
As I understand it ...
Trending Topics
19 February 2002, 12:18 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The website did'nt get sued because they removed the posting "
not entirely true Niel,i think.It was the SPEED at which they removed it rather than just the fact they did.So you had better get those little old fingers excersised mate,cus if ya don't moderate quick enough......... eeeeeek!!!!!
not entirely true Niel,i think.It was the SPEED at which they removed it rather than just the fact they did.So you had better get those little old fingers excersised mate,cus if ya don't moderate quick enough......... eeeeeek!!!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post