Censorship and that judgement

[Gibbo]

I've put the text of the judgement up here........

 

http://smartgauge.co.uk/judgement.html

 

Oddly, or maybe sheer coincidence, my ftp server would not allow access and I had to contact the provider to get the password reset before I could use it. Weird. Never happened before.

 

I'll keep you posted if I get any legal threats. I'll publish those too.

[RLWP]

Just a thought. Will it be you Gibbo they come after, or SmartGauge?

 

Richard

[Gibbo]

Just a thought. Will it be you Gibbo they come after, or SmartGauge?

 

I don't think they'll do anything. I don't think they can. I think they're relying on people being frightened of big scary lawyers. Time will tell I guess.

 

But to answer your question, I have no idea

[RLWP]

I don't think they'll do anything. I don't think they can. I think they're relying on people being frightened of big scary lawyers. Time will tell I guess.

 

But to answer your question, I have no idea

 

What I'm trying to say is, if it's you personally - good luck to you. If it's Merlin Equipment ltd because it's on their website - is that what you intended?

 

Richard

[Gibbo]

What I'm trying to say is, if it's you personally - good luck to you. If it's Merlin Equipment ltd because it's on their website - is that what you intended?

 

I know what you're saying. But the absolute worst that can happen is they get told to take it down. And knowing the bosses as I do they'd refuse anyway

[RLWP]

Cool. Good luck

 

Richard

[Minos]

My (admittedly limited) experience of what the Americans call "cease & desist" notices to websites is that any action will in the first instance be directed to the registrant and then, if there is no satisfactory response, to the website's service provider.

 

Rather than mess about with expensive litigation, ISPs almost always simply take the offending website offline as soon as they receive the writ.

 

This is because the law hasn't caught up with the technology: the ISP is still legally regarded as responsible for content on all its servers once they have been notified, and it simply isn't worth their while fighting someone else's case. Turning off a website is easier and cheaper than standing ground and arguing about principles, rights and freedoms, especially when it is someone else who caused the argument.

 

Occasionally, a website is hosted on the owner's own server and they decide to stand and fight - such as Gillingham FC v BBC, and Jane Clift v The Daily Mail. They are the exception rather than the rule - and they cost an arm and a leg to fight.

[cotswoldsman]

Not sure what has come over me!!! But well done Gibbo.

If it is anything like what happened to me and Dow Chemicals I doubt if anything will happen except maybe a threatening email. Sometime ago I did quite a long post on The Bhopal Disaster Link to offending post the email asked me(not very politely) to remove references to Dow Chemicals. I politely emailed back and asked why. The reply came about a month later from some lawyer in New York stating that the post was inaccurate and unless I removed the post they would take me to court. I replied saying that I looked forward to my day in court and hoped that the result would be a lot more publicity for Bhopal Disaster than my little insignification website would ever generate I never heard from them again. Just as a point of interest that page has had more than 5,000 hits now.

Edited April 15, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Minos]

Sometime ago I did quite a long post on The Bhopal Disaster Link to offending post

That's a good post, John. Well done.

 

I can only speculate about Dow Chemicals' reaction to you; perhaps they judged that they would get less unfavourable publicity by letting you have your blog in peace than by chasing you through a court. David v Goliath court cases never reflect well on the big guy. Or maybe their legal fund was running out of money. You can never know.

 

That's all beside the point, though. When you are legally regarded as a publisher (and the law does regard owners and moderators of moderated internet forums as publishers) you can't expect all potential litigants to act like Dow Chemicals. Some of them act like Gina Ford. The results are never good for the forum. It is worth noting that the people who posted the comments that offended Gina Ford were never pursued. The internet forum they used was.

 

This means that the people who run forums have to take an active interest in the discussions that take place. Anything that may attract a litigious response is far more serious for the owners of the forum than it is for the people who think that they are being brave and principled by posting what they think should be publicised.

[WotEver]

Some of them act like Gina Ford. The results are never good for the forum.

An amusing aside to that case is the name of the defendant's solicitors: Finer, Stephens, Innocent.

 

Well, I thought it was amusing

 

Tony

[NB Alnwick]

Just to be clear about why we tend to ere on the side of caution:

 

Despite having more than 10,000 registered members, this is a privately owned forum and it would be unfair to subject the forum owner to anything that may require additional workload, resources or pressure against what has already been most generously provided. The forum brings a lot of pleasure and useful information to the majority of us and I am sure that most of us would like to keep it that way.

[Smelly]

Just to be clear about why we tend to ere on the side of caution:

 

Despite having more than 10,000 registered members, this is a privately owned forum and it would be unfair to subject the forum owner to anything that may require additional workload, resources or pressure against what has already been most generously provided. The forum brings a lot of pleasure and useful information to the majority of us and I am sure that most of us would like to keep it that way.

 

That's understood, however should it get hairy the resources are at your fingertips, although I; & hopefully we, appreciate Dan's aversion to hair.

[ymu]

It should be a bit safer since this ruling:

 

A High Court judge ruled this week that defamatory comments on internet forums are more like slander than libel, a judgement that could make success in such cases more difficult. Mr Justice Eady found that posts on internet discussion groups such as website bulletin boards are closer to spoken conversations than to published articles, being casual and characterised by "give and take".

 

Slander is defamation through speech, while libel is defamation through written means, such as a newspaper article. In the UK, it is significantly easier to win damages for libel than for slander. In his ruling, ...

[cotswoldsman]

Just to be clear about why we tend to ere on the side of caution:

 

Despite having more than 10,000 registered members, this is a privately owned forum and it would be unfair to subject the forum owner to anything that may require additional workload, resources or pressure against what has already been most generously provided. The forum brings a lot of pleasure and useful information to the majority of us and I am sure that most of us would like to keep it that way.

 

Graham I don't think anyone is arguing against the removal of the post. I think the OP is aimed at the lawyers concerned not just in this case but in others where there bully tactics seem to be able to allow Censorship through the back door.

i personally am still I bit confused why the reason for the removal of the post was done by PM and not on the forum as it would have been something of interest to everyone.

Having said all that censorship on this forum can occur when I mod does not like the nature of any particular question, even when that question is asked in good faith and for the right reasons.

[Gibbo]

It should be a bit safer since this ruling:

 

But he also said...

 

 

I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim,. I am focusing only on these particular circumstances.

 

 

I think the OP is aimed at the lawyers concerned not just in this case but in others where there bully tactics seem to be able to allow Censorship through the back door.

 

Absolutely. I fully understand why the other thread was pulled (i think). But I don't understand why we haven't all been told exactly why. If a threateneing email was received, why can that email not be made public?

[Chertsey]

 

 

Absolutely. I fully understand why the other thread was pulled (i think). But I don't understand why we haven't all been told exactly why. If a threateneing email was received, why can that email not be made public?

P'raps they got a super-injunction.

[Grace and Favour]

That's understood, however should it get hairy the resources are at your fingertips, although I; & hopefully we, appreciate Dan's aversion to hair.

 

Hirsute you Sir!

 

 

(with grovelling apologies to The Fast Show)

Edited April 16, 2011 by Grace & Favour

[Phoenix_V]

Just to be clear about why we tend to ere on the side of caution:

 

Despite having more than 10,000 registered members, this is a privately owned forum and it would be unfair to subject the forum owner to anything that may require additional workload, resources or pressure against what has already been most generously provided. The forum brings a lot of pleasure and useful information to the majority of us and I am sure that most of us would like to keep it that way.

The original post was pulled in the morning, an explanation being given albeit by pm rather than on the forum, no explanation has been given as to why later that day the whole thread disappeared.

[Gibbo]

The original post was pulled in the morning, an explanation being given albeit by pm rather than on the forum, no explanation has been given as to why later that day the whole thread disappeared.

 

And no explanation has been given to the rest of us at all.

[Lady Muck]

And no explanation has been given to the rest of us at all.

 

I thought Graham put it quite well?

 

GYAC....It's sunny a great weekend for boating.

 

Once we've all spoken, we may reinstate the thread.

 

There has been no threatening email, no threats of legal action. No sinister goings on and no bullying. Sorry to disappoint. It's really all very unexciting.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Lady Muck

[luctor et emergo]

I smell a conspiracy....

 

Rise now, brothers and sisters, before it's to late....

[Phoenix_V]

 

 

There has been no threatening email, no threats of legal action. No sinister goings on and no bullying. Sorry to disappoint. It's really all very unexciting.

Thats not how i read the pm from which I may not quote.

[carlt]

Thats not how i read the pm from which I may not quote.

As they are now called "conversations", not "private messages" and more than two people can be invited to join that conversation, or be copied the contents, I don't understand why everybody can't receive a copy of that conversation, if the recipient, ie. the owner, wishes.

 

I also haven't been told if it is against the rules to reveal the contents of a conversation, you have received, either.

 

I cannot find anything, in the Forum Rules and Guidelines, but I may have missed it.

[Phoenix_V]

As they are now called "conversations", not "private messages" and more than two people can be invited to join that conversation, or be copied the contents, I don't understand why everybody can't receive a copy of that conversation, if the recipient, ie. the owner, wishes.

 

I also haven't been told if it is against the rules to reveal the contents of a conversation, you have received, either.

 

I cannot find anything, in the Forum Rules and Guidelines, but I may have missed it.

It got deleted though when i copied it to the thread and then the thread went

 

one mod deleted the posts and another the whole thread, consistent, what?

[cotswoldsman]

I thought Graham put it quite well?

 

GYAC....It's sunny a great weekend for boating.

 

Once we've all spoken, we may reinstate the thread.

 

There has been no threatening email, no threats of legal action. No sinister goings on and no bullying. Sorry to disappoint. It's really all very unexciting.

 

That is certainly not how I read your PM that was posted on the thread. Maybe you would like to just post the PM again to refresh my memory I am sure it mentioned that the forum had been contacted to remove the post.