Official Boards: Shut Down

You miss the point Berkshirehorn.

Now everyone has migrated to different sites the club has lost control of what is being discussed.There is I know a MSN site set up some time ago by I believe Ron Taylor when there was a threat of a shut down so how exactly is the club going to monitor what is being discussed?
This ridiculous statement from GS about legal action is about as likely as me winning this weeks lottery.
This one post has around 135 threads so who at the club is now going to go around all the different forums to monitor what is being said?
If the club wanted control then they should have invested the money and time in their own board but have ended up chasing their tails with no idea who is saying what about whom.
If GS felt that comments on the board were not in the best interests of the club then how the hell is he going to monitor the other sites?

 

I don't say this lightly but after the GS "outburst" at the forum i spent sometime talking to the club about the way forward.

I highlighted a few concerns if the boards were closed, some of which are mentioned in this thread, plus others.

i also suggested the way the board could be improved with input for 6 or 7 people and the club at NO COST.
The software issue was never going to change as that is part of the PTV contract.

i was quietly confident we had found some mutual ground, whilst still knowing GS was spitting bricks.

However it wasn't to be and i personally believe they have acted on emotion as opposed to common sense and they have now created a far bigger monster.

 

Which is exactly why it is up to us as supporters to minimise the rumours and not strengthen them by spreading them without some form of back up to the claims...
It is now that the threat of lawsuits for libel would be more likely to happen... given that the club itself would not lose out so the players wouldnt have any qualms about it and the club would want to cover their a$$es... the only people to suffer would be the users on this and any other forum that was targetted but most of all the Administrators of the said forums.

 

Legal Action

Before anyone gets carried away, theirs' no reason why legal action could'nt be taken against this forum! Slander is Slander and your no safer here, in fact more at risk.

Legal action against the offical website would be a bit strange, but highly likely against any independant ones...

 

Welcome Mr Philips and thanks for the advice.

 

Glad to be here and to see so many familiar names...

 

complete cobblers, seeing as slander is spoken not written as anyone over the age of 6 would know, but well done anyway

 

I may be speaking out of turn, but i don't think so.

The club never considered legal action against any individual that I am aware of.

The meetings with the lawyers were based on the following;
When certain things were published the club were in a hypothetical situation where a player could have sued the club for publishing lies about that individual.

 

Seems like a very grey area to me.. and i for one wouldnt want to put it to the test

 

no one can do anything about rumours unless

a) its written down as fact - libel

b) its spoken and witnessed or recorded - slander

because the club own the boards they're liable and as someone said on another thread, although a player is unlikely to sue his own club, if he left under a cloud, possibly linked to some rumours he may feel differently.

but suing owners of independent boards is also not out of the question if a link is made between unsubstantiated comments and a detrimental affect on a career.

its unlikely but possible, so we just have to behave, allegedly

 

It's not at all a grey area. there is adequate case law to identify exactly what would happen.

The club would not be held liable for comments, however defamatory, assuming that the board was correctly moderated and the comments removed if someone raised an objection to them. So, if the player had wished to object to the comments, feeling they were defamatory, he could have complained and the commenst would have had to be removed.

The club would not have been liable for the original posting, as this would fall under the term 'innocent disemination'. Had they failed to remove the comments once they were identified and a request made to do so, that would have been a different matter.

Libel cases taken in such circumstances are invariably taken by the complainant against the poster, not the service provider. Hence, it would have been possible that the player could have taken action against the poster and the service provider could have had to reveal that posters identity.

The pantomime that followed with moderators, hopelessly out of their depth, randomly removing posts and banning individuals for making mischief had nothing to do with protecting anyone's reputation. It was just evidence of what happens when you leave monkeys in charge of the banana shop.

YOU are responsible for what you post on a messageboard, just as you would be if you wrote a letter. So just watch it Sonny.

 

as you will see here i stated pretty much the same thing in an earlier post of mine so it is not that i disagree with what you say persay... there are however legal actions that can be taken against the site if they knowingly allow the defamatory statements to remain in public view....
The grey area I was talking about was wether any action would in any event be taken out.. i think it likely would be.

 

Whilst not wishing to encourage anyone to spread rumours or make false statements about anyone - the term `allegedly` seems to be used regularly by broadcasters as a way of presenting opinions without any fact to back them up.

So for example "allegedly Graham Simpson has lost his marbles by closing the message boards" might be allowed, whereas "Graham Simpson has lost his marbles" might be actionable (unless the poster could prove insanity).

 

However you would be allowed to post "Graham Simpson has lost alot of credibility due to his infantile behaviour with regard to the Official Message Boards" as this is clearly fact.

 

infantile is an opinion. You'll be hearing from his lawyers tommorow.

 

You've just hit the nail on the head. WFC didn't shut down the boards because of the things being posted on them, they shut them down because they couldn't arsed to invest the time and money required to bring the board software and moderators up to a standard which would have covered the club's arse legally.

 

On a Sunday? Jeez, that's gonna cost!

 

A point for the legal experts... (which is not me)

In a hypothetical situation where a player is slated on a website, rumours and stories spread like wildfire thoughout both the supporters and the press, said player gets the arse because of the stick he's getting and walks out etc etc etc.

If the club can track down the who started it and who added to it , could they or could they not persue them for damages or whatever?

 

I would think that that would be a possibility.

 

For sure, and the person or people who provided the platform

 

Unless it was something very serious (much more than the Marlon, CC stuff on the fiscal boards) then it will never happen.

That is not to say you shouldn't continue to moderate this site with due diligence.

 

I don't see how the football club could sue someone for libeling someone else (their player). The player himself would have a case against that someone but not the club. WFC would only ever sue someone if their own reputation was defamed. More likely in a legal chain of events would be the club suing the player for walking out on his contract and then the player suing the 'someone' for libeling him and putting him in that position.

On the wider issue of internet libel, you might wanna read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith-Smith_v_Williams. That shows that if you say something about any identifiable person on the internet which you can't prove you will be liable. Remember, you have to be able to prove your allegations are correct, in UK law it's not up to the claimant to prove you wrong. If you have no proof, don't post it.

Anyway, all Admin has to do is make sure he has a disclaimer clearly displayed and is ready to take illegal material down at the first opportunity he has.

 

Taken from LIBEL ON THE INTERNET: AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM
http://law.buffalo.edu/Academics/courses/629/computer_law_policy_articles/CompLawPapers/holland.htm

B. GREAT BRITAIN
The problem of libel on the Internet is not solely an American problem. Recent events in England indicate that libel lawsuits for materials placed upon the Internet are becoming more common. For example, a libelous article about the Prime Minister and a fashionable London caterer placed on the Internet, resulted in a lawsuit against the "Scallywag". The case was settled when Scallywag promised to never repeat the libel again and with the understanding that republishing the material would be considered contempt of court, and punishable by imprisonment. (*Caught in a web of curiosity*, David Rennie, The Daily Telegraph, p. 29.)

The British legal approach to libel differs from the American approach. English libel law is considered to be pro-plaintiff in comparison to American libel law. The major difference between the two systems is that in America the plaintiff must prove malice, whereas the British system places the burden on the defense to show that the statement was not libelous. (*Press need to have the right to be wrong, says MP*, The Glasgow Herald, February 23, 1996, p. 6.)

Recently a bill, the Defamation Bill, was introduced to the House of Lords in England in an attempt to try to resolve the problem of libel placed on the Internet. The Defamation Bill would hold Internet providers responsible for what they print under United Kingdom libel laws in a very limited scope. The Defamation Act would not hold Internet service providers liable if they are not primarily responsible, and have given no reason to suspect that their actions have contributed to the publication of the libel.

The Defamatory Act was brought before the British Government by a lobbyist group consisting of CoumpuServe, Europe Online, and Microsoft Network. The lobbyists' argument is that the Internet should be considered equivalent to a telephone line as opposed to a publishing medium. While the American courts have recognized that in certain situations a provider would be considered a publisher, British lawmakers are reluctant to do so because they want to encourage the growth of the Internet, and secondly, because libel lawsuits are currently a problem in England.

Recognizing the potential for huge numbers of libel lawsuits growing out of the Internet, British lawmakers are eagerly looking upon the Defamation Act as a means to limit potential libel lawsuits. The Defamation Act would make libel cases cheaper and resolved more quickly. The Defamation Act would allow judges to suggest money damages to the jury and offers Internet providers the defense of *offer of amends*. Under offer of amends, the defendant who has not defamed the plaintiff intentionally has the option of apologizing to the plaintiff, and pay damages as determined by the judge. Defendants will be able to an offer amends under the defense of *innocent dissemination*. Defendants will also be able to reduce their damages if they can prove plaintiff's general bad reputation.

The Defamation Act has numerous other provisions that would limit lawsuits. The Act cuts the time limit for bringing defamation actions in England and Wales from three years to one. The Defamation Act would also grant judges the discretion of throwing out any cases without a reasonable prospect of success by means of summary procedure. In strong cases, the judges will be able to award damages up to 10,000 pounds, grant injunctions restraining further publication, and order the defendant to publish a correction, apology or report of the income.

This might help to answer a few questions.

 

I love this new forum!!

Never in a million years would the pros and cons of Libel law have been discussed back on the official boards...

 

Thanks Admin for editing my last post - very efficient and potentially saving us both a small fortune in compensation payments.

Given the fact that `a reasonable person` (legal term only as clearly there are very few reasonable people about) would merely have smiled rather than take any offence to the content, I will try and paraphrase the content (please edit it again if you think it is beyond an acceptable degree of criticism).

The concept was that many broadcasters place the word `allegedly` in front of any suspect content.

The contentious and clearly politically incorrect example I gave can be paraphrased by:

Should one state that allegedly a senior football club official was suffering from a confused mental state - this might be allowable, whereas if it was stated that `a senior football club official was suffering from a confused mental state` - this would constitute an actionable case.

I should add that the above examples are not necessarily based on any senior football official who is living or dead.

 

I have said it too many times to count now. Read the newsletter, (sticky like this thread), and you will again read that we are being over cautious right now because without doubt we are being watched closely to see how we fare in our early days. Think I'm being paranoid? Fair enough. I'm not. When things have calmed down a little and everyone realises we're not on the main boards anymore then we can all relax a little.

Me and the moderation team are explaining every action we make, and usually it leads to an attack of some sort, but at least we're trying to do it in the open.

Whilst I'd like to smile at every post made, (it takes a lot to offend me personally), the problem is I'm not the only one reading the content!

 

I agree

with admin on this. They have put one hell of a lot of time, effort and funds into this. There is no point not implementing a zero tolerence by the people who started the forum as it leeds to:

1) - the direction and manner in which they wish the MB to be used
2) - it is easy for people like myself and other users just to come on here, have a laugh and not care if the MB got closed down or such like things, because we know there are other sites we can go and abuse. It is a matter of fairness and consideration to those who have made an effort and used a lot of time and energy for the sake of the many. If anyone doesn't understand what I mean then they are a complete masterbater and don't desrve to have a place like this to go.
3) - As I posted on the old MB - it is every individual's responsibilty to contribute to the good running, the debates and the humour and to be aware of what really is unacceptable to those who run it.

 

Yes - no problem Admin - I can understand the situation.

I guess it is a slightly different mind set that things said with a smile may not appear that way in the cold hard light of day.

The last thing we want is to lose this board - I guess it says it all, there was never an edit or criticism on the content on the Club Board. It is good that you place an edit comment on site as although it might mean me wearing the dunces cap for a while at least others now know, naming names is a `dangerous game` even if done in a jocular manner.

PYA also agree with you.

 

From advice about libel on http://www.rad10.com/news/so_sue_me/


"What perhaps is more worrying for radio stations is not the lack of knowledge that presenters have, but the misconstrued ideas that they have picked up. Among the most common is the idea that saying "allegedly" after making a defamatory comment will prevent you from receiving a libel writ. Unfortunately, and mainly due to programmes like Have I Got News For You, using the "allegedly" word is actually more likely to see you in court - as it is perceived as admittance that you're not sure whether what you are saying is true. "

 

Exactly afanof. But think about it, it'd be absurd if you could absolve yourself of all responsibility for what you say just by putting 'allegedly' in front of the sentence. The most simple advice I can give is this: it doesn't matter whether what you say is true or not, you have to be able to prove it. If you can't prove it, don't write it on a public internet forum.

 

Very interesting link afanov.

It would be interesting to know if opinion (free speech) is actionable as if so we are getting very close to a totalitarian state.

If I say for example that "in my opinion a (named senior) politician is a dangerous threat to our democracy" - perhaps listing a number of reasons that make me think that - could it ever be actionable?

The paralel might be if I then made my opinion about Graham Simpson`s actions in closing the board public (without questioning his parentage or anything derogatory like that).

There appears to be evidence that phraseology is the true test.

 

hornetmaster - I have no expertise in this but I think,as UEA says, it depends on proof. If you say something which could be viewed as defamatory but you have solid evidence to back it up you should be OK but that does mean solid evidence eg photographs, documents, signed statements etc., not a rumour from an undisclosed source or an unsubstantiated opinion.