|
|
Post by bonfemme on Nov 30, 2016 6:56:38 GMT
/mod hat ON! No you can't, but anyone in possession of the club name can probably find it (and any Guardian Readers probably already know). Sorry but I think that is ridiculous. The story is in a national newspaper naming MT and the club.....anyone who says posting a link to that article could cause this website to be sued (for what possible reason?) is having a laugh (Maybe The Guardian have their lawyers primed awaiting pending court case for reporting the news). Last time I made a comment like this I was warned by a mod that they feared being held personally liable by any legal action. Bonkers. Well said. But you're banging your head against a brick wall I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Nov 30, 2016 7:42:51 GMT
Sorry but I think that is ridiculous. The story is in a national newspaper naming MT and the club.....anyone who says posting a link to that article could cause this website to be sued (for what possible reason?) is having a laugh (Maybe The Guardian have their lawyers primed awaiting pending court case for reporting the news). Last time I made a comment like this I was warned by a mod that they feared being held personally liable by any legal action. Bonkers. Endless threads cover this in more detail but the unpaid voluntary mods are not legally trained, the board and the mods are liable if someone comes along and says something daft after a firm has been named, bit harsh if they are expected to financially pay for our freedom of expression. The Moneysavingexpert board can be more robust as it has paid legal advice, I imagine board members would not welcome a board membership fee! Jack P
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 30, 2016 12:57:31 GMT
/mod hat ON! No you can't, but anyone in possession of the club name can probably find it (and any Guardian Readers probably already know). Sorry but I think that is ridiculous. <snip> Last time I made a comment like this I was warned by a mod that they feared being held personally liable by any legal action. Bonkers. Sorry, but them is the rules. If you want to volunteer to be a moderator, feel free. The issue is the ability to link forum comments about a loan ('The borrower on this loan is a known crook' for instance**, which you will probably be able to find several instances of in various places) to a particular borrower name, aided and abetted by Google's web crawling. Nothing to do with the Guardian, or their lawyers (they have plenty), more to do with our forum posters' comments and our lack of lawyers. ** for the avoidance of doubt, since at least one person was concerned, I make no such assertion about the (un-named) borrower associated with this particular loan.. 8>.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 30, 2016 13:28:27 GMT
The story is in a national newspaper naming MT and the club.....anyone who says posting a link to that article could cause this website to be sued (for what possible reason?) is having a laugh (Maybe The Guardian have their lawyers primed awaiting pending court case for reporting the news). Last time I made a comment like this I was warned by a mod that they feared being held personally liable by any legal action. Bonkers. Absolutely NOT having a laugh, and reading this is both depressing and frustrating (especially given I had patiently explained the reasoning previously). Republishing defammatory material from another source is itself defammation. The guardian can afford to defend itself against litigation for defammation, this forum can not. Nor do we have access to legal advice on call on a dialy basis to inform our decisions. The forum rules are there to protect as best as we can all forum users from unintended legal consequences regarding defammation / libel. The forum mod team would be delighted if anyone with a detaled knowledge of defamation case law volunteered to be a mod. uk.practicallaw.com/0-500-1037?source=relatedcontent#a397214www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk_defamation_law_reforms_take_effect_from_start_of_2014/
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059 
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Nov 30, 2016 13:32:34 GMT
<snip> Republishing defammatory material from another source is itself defammation. </snip> This isn't republishing though is it? This is merely linking to a website.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 30, 2016 13:38:09 GMT
<snip> Republishing defammatory material from another source is itself defammation. </snip> This isn't republishing though is it? This is merely linking to a website. The first link in my post above contains this paragrah: There is also doubt as to whether search engines or providers of hypertext links are publishers. In Hird v Wood ([1894] 38 SJ 234), a man sitting in a chair pointed out to passers-by a defamatory sign erected over the road. He was held to be a publisher. By pointing out the sign, he had contributed to its publication. By analogy, the same principle could apply to the provider of a hypertext link. However, much may depend on the facts. For instance, if the link is to a site as a whole, as opposed to a particular article on it, there is a stronger argument that no act of publication takes place.I'm sorry but in the absense of further input from lawyers with experience in defammation case law, further discussion of this is not going to change the approach of this forum. See also www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm and a host of other informed discussion regarding this subject, all of which is consistent in warning of substantial risks.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Nov 30, 2016 13:48:00 GMT
The issue is the ability to link forum comments about the loan ('The borrower on this loan is a known crook' for instance, which you will probably be able to find several instances of in various places) to a particular borrower name, aided and abetted by Google's web crawling. 1. search on ******** and the **** and the 6th result names the borrower. It's the second non-forum result. 2. search on ******** and the ****** ***** and the third result names the borrower. It's the first non-forum result. The forum and its moderators have clearly facilitated trivial jigsaw identification of the borrower and have no more protection than that provided by the law after engaging in such identification, which is fortunately considerable.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Nov 30, 2016 14:43:55 GMT
While you are right about linking, just about everything that mentions is now obsolete or irrelevant in practice in Britain and Scotland, though still of relevance in other jurisdictions. At least your second link does explain that under current law in Britain and Scotland there is no material defamation risk for the forum or its moderators, other than the potentially non-trivial cost of getting the case thrown out at an early stage. With respect to both liking and ongoing risks you might find 2015s Beware online words that can lead to a libel charge ( direct link for FT online subscribers or anonymous mode browser clicking) of more value because it does cover events since the Defamation Act 2013. Particularly useful, perhaps, for these portions: " US-based stock shortseller Gotham City Research was sued for libel last year by Quindell, the Aim-quoted insurance claims processor, after tweeting a link to a highly critical report it produced about the company, claiming its stock was “uninvestable”. Quindell obtained a default judgment after Gotham did not defend the claim in London" (my bold) " Jason Page of Telford in the UK, for example, faces a legal bill of £100,000 after he groundlessly called US-based lawyer Timothy Bussey a “ bag” who “loses 80 per cent of his cases” on Google Maps. The anonymous review was defamatory of Mr Bussey and his firm, ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady.
Several fans of Blackpool Football Club, meanwhile, face libel actions after criticising the club’s owners, Karl and Owen Oyston, on Facebook and on an internet forum, backhenrystreet.co.uk. Other Blackpool fans have rallied round to help one defendant, pensioner Frank Knight, to meet the £20,000 in damages he had already agreed to pay the club." (my bold) Of course there are risks other than defamation to consider. With respect to the actual defamation risks, I hereby commit to providing £100 or more if I wish towards legal costs of the forum and/or its moderators should that be necessary and provided both I still consider myself to be regularly active here at the time and that the moderators have not failed to act when given proper notice, as for example under the Defamation Act 2013 defence method for web sites. I encourage others to act similarly, since there really is a genuine potential cost issue involved and many of us can collectively provide considerable support at low per-person cost if we work together. Perhaps some platforms might also wish to make similar offers at levels appropriate for their situation. Collectively we may end up making it clear that the forum and its moderators will not an easy target for improper claims.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,878
Likes: 6,947
|
Post by duck on Nov 30, 2016 15:55:51 GMT
As somebody who has had the dubious pleasure of studying European and International Law (for a specific point of law on which I was challenging HMG) I find it perplexing to see this discussion without having the statute laid out. So here is a relevant extract from the Deformation Act 2013 (note the use of 'operators')
5 Operators of websites
(1) This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.
(2) It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
(3) The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that—
(a)it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
(b)the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
(c)the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), it is possible for a claimant to “identify” a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person.
(5) Regulations may—
(a)make provision as to the action required to be taken by an operator of a website in response to a notice of complaint (which may in particular include action relating to the identity or contact details of the person who posted the statement and action relating to its removal);
(b)make provision specifying a time limit for the taking of any such action;
(c)make provision conferring on the court a discretion to treat action taken after the expiry of a time limit as having been taken before the expiry;
(d)make any other provision for the purposes of this section.
(6) Subject to any provision made by virtue of subsection (7), a notice of complaint is a notice which—
(a)specifies the complainant’s name,
(b)sets out the statement concerned and explains why it is defamatory of the complainant,
(c)specifies where on the website the statement was posted, and
(d)contains such other information as may be specified in regulations.
(7) Regulations may make provision about the circumstances in which a notice which is not a notice of complaint is to be treated as a notice of complaint for the purposes of this section or any provision made under it.
(8)Regulations under this section—
(a)may make different provision for different circumstances;
(b)are to be made by statutory instrument.
(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(10) In this section “regulations” means regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(11) The defence under this section is defeated if the claimant shows that the operator of the website has acted with malice in relation to the posting of the statement concerned.
(12) The defence under this section is not defeated by reason only of the fact that the operator of the website moderates the statements posted on it by others
For a deformation case serious harm has to be proved
Serious harm
(1)
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2)
For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
It should be noted that there is a set procedure for moderators to contact the poster and ask 'him' to remove the post or to remove the post 'himself' if the poster cannot be contacted/refuses to remove the post. This process should be carried out within set timescales if a Notice of Complaint compliant with Section 5(6) of the 2013 act is received.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Nov 30, 2016 17:17:32 GMT
Better safe than sorry when it comes to the law, folks. Especially when one can find out the borrower in question externally to the forum in much less time it takes to debate the legalities of naming them on the forum  Anyway, do we think this upcoming update will be the tranches continuing (my suspicion) or the borrower has financed elsewhere and the first tranche will be repaid, or perhaps even bankruptcy (long shot?)? |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 1, 2016 8:44:02 GMT
For a deformation case... I think you mean "defamation", although I s'pose they might be getting all bent out of shape over the claims...
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Dec 1, 2016 9:44:12 GMT
This seems to go round and round in circles. There's lots of instances of where people stumble into unintended libels, and lots of emerging law that suggests that there are legal defences to such libels.
>>>>obtained a default judgment after Gotham did not defend the claim in London"
As a working journalist what I must do with every word i print is try to avoid a claim being made in the first place - because whether or not the case has merit, defending even a very thin claim is time consuming and expensive and it may simply be easier to cough up. £100 would buy a few minutes specialist legal advice.
We cannot expect voluntary mods to be balancing all this in real time with the volumes of postings that take place - the simplest and safest is just to suck it up and avoid naming directly or indirectly.
Jack P
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 1, 2016 10:11:21 GMT
avoid naming directly or indirectly The moderators already do habitually accept trivial jigsaw identification for some platforms and even though the most obvious of searches identify the borrower as first and second search results identify this borrower the loan still seems to be getting discussed without effective action to prevent that trivial identification. As a working journalist what I must do with every word i print is try to avoid a claim being made in the first place As a person who's only had to pay attention to this area of law for twenty years so do I, though without my customer to be first target in legal action. £100 would buy a few minutes specialist legal advice. Private indications are that more would be available and I'd probably actually go to a few thousand personally. Not going to be much action on something in such an obscure place, though. But the question is, would it actually make any difference or would the moderators continue to act as they do now? If there was no change in behaviour the money would be wasted however much or little it is. We cannot expect voluntary mods to be balancing all this in real time with the volumes of postings that take place Which is odd because I always have expected to balance such things when moderating and having people moderating for me. At least the appearance of possible defamation tends to be fairly clear. The catch is having moderators notice it or having it reported and the way things are being done now presumably discourages reporting and increases the risk level.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 1, 2016 10:18:01 GMT
Hey james, rather than complaining endlessly you could always volunteer as a Mod too and help out by eliminating all this jigsaw identification you mention. Oh no, my mistake: I forgot that you were approached and decided you don't fancy it. Never mind. |
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 1, 2016 16:19:46 GMT
Hey james , rather than complaining endlessly you could always volunteer as a Mod too and help out by eliminating all this jigsaw identification you mention. Oh no, my mistake: I forgot that you were approached and decided you don't fancy it. Never mind. I've never to my recollection been formally approached to be a moderator here, though from time to time moderators have seemed to use my not being one to attack me when disagreeing with my points. Though since it is close to the middle of the night for me maybe I'm forgetting something that was intended to be a serious invitation. However, if approached I would decline for reasons I've discussed before: it could increase the legal risk because I do active due diligence question asking. Those questions could lead to both unhappiness on someone's part based on a questions by someone who might be taken to be a representative of the forum, hence denying the forum the ability to argue that it did not make the post. Which could then make the forum and its operators at risk from doing just the sort of questioning that the FCA expects investors in P2P to be doing. It simply wouldn't be wise for me or for the forum for me to be a moderator unless I'm going to stop using platforms where diligence is required or stop doing proper investigating of where my money is being invested. And I think that the value in me doing that exceeds the value of being a moderator, unless I thought I could produce a change in moderation policy by being a moderator, something I don't think is likely. The continuing conflict between the needs of investors to properly investigate their investments and the moderation practices mean that this issue is unlikely to go away unless there is a change in those practices. It'll be a point of stress for as long as those two things exist, quite possibly the whole future lifetime of this board. This doesn't mean that I lack sympathy or understanding of the issues facing moderators, having been both moderator and owner of boards myself in the past. Offering to help as part of a collective pool of money to handle nuisance legal claims doesn't have the effect of increasing that risk and instead should reduce both the risk and potential cost of claims. If, that is, it produces any useful change in behaviour that makes it worth doing. This is the approach that I think has the greatest potential to resolve the tension between board and moderator risk and investor's need to do proper due diligence.
|
|
bag” who “loses 80 per cent of his cases” on Google Maps. The anonymous review was defamatory of Mr Bussey and his firm, ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady.
