|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Slander, Libel & Defamation
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Slander, Libel & Defamation
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 10:03 am |        | These three words have been thrown around here often throughout the past six years, but recently even more so. I've received several communications from various parties in the past two months charging that posts made to these boards have been libelous and/or defamatory, to varying degrees. More troubling, I have also been threatened with a lawsuit for 'publishing' such 'slanderous' postings.
Obviously I need to consider taking some CYA steps here, but before I implement any radical new policy changes I wanted to run some questions by the group.
1. First, for any legal minds out there, can you please provide a proper legal definition of libel, slander and/or defamation, and give me your opinion as to whether or not these boards have allowed such posts to thrive. Please do not mention names or specific posts here, but feel free to email me privately if you like. Also, if you could elucidate on what my legal standing would be in reference to a libelous post - would I be held liable as the publisher of such a piece, or do our standard disclaimers separate me from any responsibility for what is said on these boards? My understanding is that there are legal precedents in which online BBS owners were *not* held liable for defamation suits in the U.S. - but would that protection still cover a case in which the plaintiff was from the U.K.?
2. Second, do you feel that negative comments on an individual's character, even if not necessarily libelous, should be allowed on these boards? This includes character issues that may be related to the Ripper case, including but not limited to research abilities, integrity, etc. Where would you draw the line?
3. If you feel such comments are inappropriate, would you support a zero-tolerance policy in which *any* post containing even a single infraction, regardless of the inherent worth or value of the other information in that post, should be purged in its entirety?
4. Would you support a policy whereby all posts, when submitted, are dropped into a queue, and must be individually approved by the moderators before they can be posted to the live site? Understand that this will significantly impact the "real-time" aspect of conversations, as posts may take up to 24-48 hours to be approved in some cases.
Personally, I think some of the behavior shown on these message boards has been absolutely deplorable of late. That said, I don't know if I would consider that behavior to be libelous, and the free-speech advocate within spurs me to protect the rights of everyone here to say what they like. But if this policy leaves me open to a libel suit, and if alternatives can be found that will suit the majority's needs, I am certainly open to suggestions.
Thank you for your time.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
http://www.casebook.org |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 12:12 pm | | Stephen,
First, I would just like to say that I find it appalling that you've been threatened with a lawsuit. That is truly unfortunate, and it couldn't be more misdirected in my opinion. You have created a wonderful place here, and made it available for all to enjoy. For someone to threaten you for what a poster said is terribly sad.
I can't offer you any legal advice, but as to the rest of it...
2) I am as big of a free spech advocate as you will find, but seems to me that prohibiting or restricting negative comments against other posters can only help.
I certainly don't think an issue needs to be made of every single slight or insult, but patterns of abuse should be addressed. Once a discussion has fallen down to endless name calling and personal slurs, it's probably better off done through email. Such things are rarely resolved by fighting it out in public, and seem to go on perpetually. Additonally, these personal spats are very disruptive to the boards they occur on, and can derail a topic indefinately.
Also, by simply having the policy (hopefully) makes it less likely that you'll need to actually enforce it, as it will encourage people to keep an eye on what they're saying. I know that I have made efforts to police my own posts more strongly after the personal attacks policy came into being. We all get over excited at times, and it's easier to be offensive online without necessarily intending to. Many people will say things online that they would never say to a persons face. I don't think that people truly intend to offend in many cases, they've simply let their enthusiasm carry them too far. I've been guilty on that score myself, much to my regret.
3) Personally I'm against zero tolerance policies in general. Sometimes human judgment is needed, and I trust the management here to make wise decisions. I think the lengthy and lively history of the message boards, is a fine testement to the efficiency of the "jolly fascist" (as I belive you once called it) management method. On the other hand, a zero tolerance policy might provide a better CYA factor.
4) I can imagine that a posting queue would certainly provide pretty good legal cover. It's certainly not ideal, and would impact the flow of conversation significantly. I'll hope you can come to another solution, but if that's what it takes to properly insulate you guys from potential lawsuits, then by all means go that route.
It seems to be a sad reality that in this day and age that there doesn't need to be any sort of factual basis to file a lawsuit. I saw in the paper today that a man was suing the fast food chains, claiming that they were responsible for his obesity. Good grief. If it turns out that you have potential liability, by all means protect yourself as best you can. And thank you again for providing us with such a rich and fascinating place to explore our interest.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 12:26 pm | | Dear Stephen,
I have included information, in an e-mail to you, concerning the legal definitions of libel, slander and defamation. Please remember that these statutes are in accordance with the state of Georgia, your state may be slightly different. Some states require the libel act to be malicious as well as untruthful. In other words a person may say someone’s research is faulty when it is not and that is not libel, but if someone calls the person stupid and says their research is faulty when their research is not, then they have just crossed the line.
Anyway, I have also included a recent ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court on this very topic that may provide you with a sigh of relief.
As for free speech I am a big advocate of it. I literally feel a person has the right to say what ever they want. In fact a person has the right to do whatever they want. The person just has to be adult enough to accept the consequences of their action. Be that action a law suit or a death row conviction. It is because people do not have mutual respect for each other and there are those among us who are not adult to accept their consequences that we have now become a people of zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies are extreme and make any gray areas a moot subject. I believe we should all accept a “let’s be adults about this policy.”
I have seen sites where message boards are run by moderators who have to read each post before posting and in my opinion it seriously diminishes the site. I personally think this is your call and it will not sway me from coming here. I just hope you have the man power to read the posts.
In my opinion, critique is no problem, but the problem is when someone’s critique becomes venomous. Whether the critique is true or not ( and a lot of times it is hard to prove if it is true or not) it is the name calling and anger laced tirades that reduce this site to the level of talk radio. Maybe at the next convention CMD and company can have Ripper Celebrity Boxing ?????? I recently saw a link to this site that stated this site has less than scholarly articles and discussions. I am afraid that when someone new, with serious credentials, comes by here and sees the childish ranting may have reached that same conclusion and just decided to check out. And if it has ever happened just once, it is very sad and we all suffer.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 12:33 pm | | I think a much better solution would be to autocensor potentially troublesome verbage (I'm sure that we can compose a list of words to be banned and run it through a select panel for approval) like you already do profanity. That way, won't potentially dangerous words just show up as a cluster of asterisks? Of course, when someone then calls someone else "a damned ****", then the actual intent may be misconstrued, but that is a sacrifice that I can live with.
Otherwise, I'm with John, and this attitude of someone's to bite the hand that is feeding them is really a sad commentary on our society and on Ripperology. This reminds me of the gun-control nuts; they can't win in open debate or elections, so they are now trying to win through the courts.
Sad, it really is.
WTM |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 12:55 pm | | Stephen,
I have been informed that an out of country lawsuit is filed the same way an in country suit is filed. It has to be filed in the jurisdiction where you reside.
Not insulting anyone's intelligence here, but for example; if someone from Germany were to sue me the suit would have to be filed in either the Magistrate, State or Superior Court of Athens-Clarke County Georgia. The monetary value of the suit would determine the proper venue, Magistrate, State or Superior.
As you can imagine this would be quite expensive on the plaintiff's , filing party, part. The plaintiff would first have to prove that liabel, slander or defamation of character had first taken place before being printed. In other words the plaintiff would have to also sue the party doing the damage first and win a satisfactory judgement. A good way to CYA is to incorporate this site under the corporate laws of your home state. That way any future suits arising and damge settlements against you could only come out the corporation assets and not your personal assets. There are several corporate filings and you should check with the Secretary of State in your home state as to which you should file under.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 02:15 pm | | Dear Stephen:
I haven't been posting here for very long, but you did direct your message to the entire group, so I thought I would put my two cents in.
I would like to start out by saying that I have found my interaction with the majority of the regulars to be enjoyable. I was greeted warmly when I joined, and many of the experts that post here have been enlightening, and encouraging for me. I have developed some friendships here, and it has generated some friendly ribbing from both sides that (as far as I know) has never been misinterpreted.
I have been somewhat surprised at times with some of the behavior displayed here. the only reason I say "surprised" is that every poster is required to read the "Read This First" and other posting guidelines and this behavior is stated to be unacceptable.
I am not a legal expert, so I will not address the first point of your message, and it sounds like you are getting the answers you need. So I will move on to the others...
I have always made a point to try and be considerate of others, to treat them the way I would like to be treated. I believe that people should keep this in mind when commenting on others. They can think what they like, but it does them no credit to post anything that might be construed as insult to character or ability. Likewise, many people can set themselves up by posting without checking facts. These posters can expect some degree of feedback accordingly. But I agree with the current "the action, not the person" policy. This is a forum to express ideas and it is comprised of human beings. People are going to speak their mind. They should be mindful of how they say it.
Zero tolerance would curb the behavior but at the expense of the discussion. I'm a fan of the "three strikes and you're out" mentality. If a poster can't clean up his/her act after two warnings, they probably never will.
I would support any policy that Casebook put in place, including mandatory approval before posting. It would slow the discussions down considerably at the expense of the management, but if it became policy, I would accept it. I do, however, hope it does not come down to that.
In closing, I would like to say that I am shocked that you would be sued over the statements of others. You have done everything in your power to ensure that people are aware that personal attacks are unacceptable and have consequences. Casebook also states that opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions etc. I should think that this is sufficient to CYA. However, any decision you make in regards to policies and guidelines have my full support and compliance.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 02:22 pm | | Stephen,
I abhor the personal insulting remarks and other distasteful commentary that appears on these boards. And I have frequently made this known on this site.
However, I do oppose any form of censorship because many of these issues are judgement calls. Defining what is mere insult versus substance is extremely difficult in many cases.
I am not a lawyer. But my understanding, at least according to U.S. law, is that you are not responsible for the remarks posted by others.
Ironically, if you or your moderators choose to become "editors" then you might have some legal culpability.
Currently, postings are made without your consent. If you choose to edit this website, then the implication is you consent to the remarks posted - ergo you are now the person posting the remarks not the individual poster.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 02:46 pm | | Stephen,
I wonder if there's a precedent for suing the owner of a message board for the content posted on it. I also think it's deplorable that you've been threatened with legal action.
Zero tolerance and scanning every post sounds like an incredible amount of work and is baby-sitting. Who's got the time for it? Censoring the boards--well, what would be the point of even having the boards, then?
Sadly, if I were you, I'd take the boards down. I think the good that comes from them, the information, debate, and social interaction far outweighs the bad, but I think you need to ask yourself if it's worth having the worry of a libel suit hanging over your head.
I can only hope that whoever threatened you with such action did so in the heat of anger, thinks better of it, and will make a private apology to you. However, now that the spectre has been raised, you're still forced to deal with the possibility.
Sorry for the gloomy suggestion, Stephen. I love the community you've provided for us, and think a lot of just about everybody here. Hopefully, someone will come up with something better.
Best,
Dave |
Author: brad mcginnis
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 08:25 pm | | Stephan,
All the necessary cautions and disclaimers are covered in the "Read This First" section. Since all of us here are in fact uninvited interlopers neither you or Casebook can be held accountable for what someone says. In short, no worries. Brad |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 10:23 pm | | | I'm not a lawyer, but I'm one of the oldies on this board. I would be sick if it went down. I hope someone can help you who has a legal background and that you won't be forced to take the boards down. If you do I can only say thank you for all the years of enjoyment and mental stimulation the boards have provided. I took an insult some years back and I just decided that I would ignore it. When they saw that their efforts to draw me into a disgraceful name-calling contest had failed they forgot about me. When you respond to people like that you inevitably are drawn down to their level. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 12:34 am | | I echo Diana's last sentence, with the regretful observation that I have, in the past, let myself be dragged down to an undesirable level of name-calling when provoked by sudden unexpected and virulent personal attacks.
Still, I think the freedom to comment on other people's scholarly competence must be permitted. Those who go too far will, in the end, only draw the distaste of disinterested readers on their own heads (as I did at that time). When some time back, Caroline (I think it was) floated the obviously non-starting proposal of George Grossmith as the Ripper, those who perpetually mocked her or used it as a stick to beat her with when they disagreed with other things she had said made themselves, in my opinion, look far sillier than her.
May I endorse, too, the widespread shock and disapproval that anyone should have threatened you with possible libel proceedings.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: stephen miller
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 12:39 am | | Stephen I hope this gets sorted out I find the idea of legal action against yourself ridiculous
Surely the poster of the message(s) should be held accountable
all the best
steve |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 06:34 am | | P-lease, Martin, not George - that really would be going too far!  . It was his younger far less famous or successful brother, Weedon, who interested me, with his passion for explosives, stealing regularly from George, his connections with Whitechapel, the theatre and disguise, Jack Sheppard, cruel jokes he played, his association with MacNaghten and Sims, the blackmail attempt on him by Tottie Fay, and his boasting that he nearly sent Mark Twain and Max O'Rell sixty feet down on to rocks below cliffs at Broadstairs, etc etc etc. Otherwise, yes, I now agree, that Weedon is a non-starting proposal because he was never, as far as I will ever know, suspected by anyone who knew him at the time.
But it would have made a great piece of fiction, IMHO, and I'd be willing to wager that old Weedy wouldn't have minded in the least! 
Hi Stephen,
I too can hardly believe anyone would threaten you with a lawsuit over what someone else has chosen to post here. But I think Rich may have made a valid point. Once the Casebook takes it upon itself to delete certain posts under, say, the personal attacks policy, if any other posts containing personal attacks are not deleted (for whatever reason, whether it be an oversight or because the content is deemed acceptable by the moderators), the latter 'victim' might see this as actively allowing a personal attack on him/her, while disallowing similar attacks on others. But as this is only a temporary problem these days anyway, the vast majority of posts going the way of all flesh and no longer being archived - I do wonder whether anyone would have a leg to stand on legally, if they tried to pursue an action of this nature. Could anyone realistically sue because you failed to delete an allegedly 'slanderous' post immediately, or within days, as opposed to a month or so, when it gets round to regular weeding time? I'd hope that any right-minded legal eagle would tell the complainant in no uncertain terms not to even think about it, for their own sanity and everyone else's. Life's far too short.
And, as Martin says, the attacker usually ends up looking sillier than the one being attacked/ridiculed/insulted, so perhaps the victim should be thanking Stephen (as I do) for providing the forum for all the fools to rush in.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R Court
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 08:12 am | | Hi Stephen,
I agree with Caz and the others but also, unfortunantly, I believe you are still right to be cautious. I am no lawyer but as the reading of JtR message board posts is open to anyone with access to the necessary technical facilities (only the writing of mails being restricted), what appears on the message board could well be taken to have been 'made public'.
The board is declared and restricted as a 'Private posting area' only for writing posts and that could maybe be fuel to some advocate. Modern court decisions have been sometimes unpredictable at best, at worst downright false and to condem. Even when chances are slight, an unlucky outcome would be fatal.
I also agree that censoring posts is very undesireable indeed, even when some participants missuse the board. I say 'censoring' because that is what we are talking about, the restriction of content and not 'moderation', which implies control of tone only.
I submit that the question here is not one of reducing or forbidding post content (who will decide what, and on what basis?) but simply if you (or any postmaster) has responsibility for the contents of the mail. Hopefully no.
In any case, keep on with the excellent work.
Best regards,
Bob Court |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 09:06 am | | Hey Stephen:
Case law for the Internet is still too new to take anything for granted, so if you've been notified of a potential lawsuit -- hopefully in writing -- you may wish to consult an attorney. In cases of a similar kind -- where the owner or "publisher" of a web sit, message board, etc. may have violated some local or higher legislation against things like "ordinary" pornography and child pornography -- I do not believe any disclaimer would be protection for you. I think courts have placed the burden on the entities (ISPs, Newsgroups, etc.) to "police" themselves in these matters. Ignorance is no excuse under the law.
I've heard of "cease and desist" orders or appeals -- for example, the Tommy Lee what's-his-name and Pamela Anderson video sued for such an injunction.
BUT, pornography, especially child pornography, and invasion-of-privacy/"cease and desist" issues are a far cry from the old libel/slander. You would be taking your chances the litigant MAY find a sympathetic venue for his or her lawsuit. Again, consult a lawyer or the EFF or even the ACLU.
Scott, I believe it was, is correct in also pointing out that jurisdiction will be a problem...but maybe not just for you. The offended party may have to prove some jurisdictional requirements have been met. No easy thing in cyberspace.
Another source is the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) at http://www.eff.org/. You may find free advice or even email them with the lawsuit notice you received and your URL.
Until you feel comfortable with your legal standing, better be safe than sued. Implement a fairly rigorous, perhaps temporary ban, on all posts that contain the type of speech or language mentioned in the legal threat.
Last, I am sure you are in your rights to publish a notice of who, what, why, etc. you have threatened to be sued. It is also strangely suspicious that you -- if considered as a "publisher" with full editorial control of a public message board -- are alone threatened. Why hasn't the offending poster also been threatened with legal action? I would think the lack of notice to the offending post's author -- even if the offended party does not have a physical or email address to privately notify the party -- should have been given some notice, even by posting a public notice in the venue where the alleged libel/slander occured. This lack of notification makes me think the person threatening you has little or no idea of their own legal standing and are operating under a very scary idea that their personal ideas of the law are actually, and in legislative language, The Law!
Consult a professional, that's my best advice. You may find a legal ground to countersue the threatening party if a professional feels the person(s) has no case and is merely using this supposedly legal tactic to threaten, harass, intimidate, and threaten your right to free speech. You could possibly recoup any financial loss in consulting a professional with a countersuit against the person threatening you (or the Casebook -- it's possible, depending on how the Casebook is organized legally for tax purposes, that the threatening party cannot sue YOU, personally, but can sue the entity known as The Casebook web site).
These kinds of tactics are sad but should never be taken lightly. Free speech is never "free." If you find that you must pay for legal counseling, I for one would be willing to make a contribution to a properly organized Casebook Defense Fund.
Good luck, Stephen.
Yaz |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 09:49 am | | Stephen,
I don't want to get into giving too much advice - although I read law - because there are issues involved here that only a specialist could sort out for you. And specialists don't come cheap. Probably by now you've been advised on the difference between slander and simply calling somene names. From what I've seen in the boards, people do call each other names, but nothing I've seen so far is actionable. Telling someone his or her pet theories stink is not insulting h or h. Calling someone an idiot is not slandering him or her; you might actually be able to prove you were right. :-) And slander has to meet certain criteria. You don't slander a convicted thief by calling h or h careless with other people's property. You don't slander someone with an assertion lacking in credibility either.
One point I would get advice on, though, is the fact that many people post here under pseudonyms. If someone slandered me under an assumed name - and caused me material damages - I could not sue Rosebud or EastEnder, could I? Then I would try to get you, as Casebook Boss, to disclose the identity of the poster, and maybe force you to do it by suing you as well. My hopes of getting anything out of you, however, are, in my view, minimal. And I am not referring to your solvency.
It gets far more complicated than I think it's worth.
Cheers,
Eduardo |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 11:07 am | | I want to thank everyone for their emails and posts concerning this topic. I've received several bits of excellent advice and will be taking everything into consideration.
I should explain that the threatened lawsuit remained just that, a threat, and that the offended party did promptly apologize for levying it upon reflection. But my concern, of course, was that this may happen again, and perhaps the next time they'll take it all the way to the courts. I wanted to acquire a strong understanding of my own legal rights in this situation, to guard against being bullied into unwanted censorship simply at the whim of a litigious malcontent.
All I can say for now is that the boards are certainly not going to be taken down, but that certain changes may be implemented in the near future to provide some legal protection.
Thanks again for all your comments. |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 01:36 pm | | Ditto everything above.
I know we live in a very litigious age, but let me say now - to anyone who has felt insulted by any of my posts - pleeeeease don't be, it's mostly said in jest, or - at worst - when I'm playing "Devil's advocate".
I'm sure the majority of the people that I insult "openly" with comments such as "Get back in your box, Monty" know where I am coming from.
Peace
Peter. |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Saturday, 27 July 2002 - 05:57 am | | Hi all,
Enough of this legal nonsense, just name the muppet and we'll send the boys round.
Jim
*LEGAL DISCLAIMER*
This posting is an attempt at humour by an individual who has no links with organised crime and is scared of his own Missus and his Mum |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 27 July 2002 - 08:28 am | | Outrage...its an outrage !
Jim,
Count me in. I do have organised crime links. Ive watched the Godfather.
Peter,
You were joking ??? oh right....so was I.
Monty who is no help what so ever....sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
