Official BF Rooch (Roast) Thread

[arrowman]

Lot of that going around

Indeed there is

I'll respond to your latest post later on.

But if I were you'd I'd get back to the main board right now.

 

[Chief]

Nah I'm going to lunch.

 

[arrowman]

OK, the defamation debate seems to be dying off so I’ll make just one last post on the subject.

They monitor content to some extent but they do not, and we are very specific about this, read every message. They just don't. So if you post something it is at your risk, not ours.

But as I have said, [I believe that] you cannot avoid any legal liability for defamatory posts by simply saying “we don’t read each an every post”. As soon as you provide any sort of moderation you are acting in a manner that exposes you.

It is a principle of contract law that if two parties are acting towards each other as though they had a contract, then an implied contract exists, regardless of whether one has actually been signed. I believe a similar principle would apply in cases such as moderation of internet forums.

Everyone who has ever complained about content has understood this as they ALWAYS ask for the name of the person who posted it so they can take action.

That does not mean that a more knowledgeable person, with a bigger wallet and a bigger grievance, would not take it further. The behaviour of people (not lawyers) who are trying to address a grievance by themselves is not a demonstration of the actual legal situation.

I don't own the data so I always direct them to someone in BIG who always tells them privacy laws make it impossible for them to hand out information without a legal order. You would have a hard time suing someone for refusing to break the law.

But we’re not talking about “suing someone for refusing to provide the identity of the poster”, we’re talking about suing the publisher (BF) - and also possibly the poster.

All the info I am providing in this thread is to make it clear that you, as the user, are responsible for the consequences of what you post.

I am well aware that I may be responsible for the consequences of what I post. (And since several people here know who I am in real life, I would be even more careful )

All I’m saying is that I may not be the only one

You are going to a lot of trouble to make the (valid) point that posters may be held liable for their own work, but then you are making the mistake that this in some way is relevant to the potential liability of the publisher.

Telling users they may be responsible changes nothing about the potential liability of the publisher.

Cheers.

 

[Crow-mo]

I agree that there may be disputed interpretations of publisher responsibility but it might be better to thrash the argument out here rather than in an expensive courtroom.

WTF?

 

[Corpuscles]

Indeed there is

I'll respond to your latest post later on.

But if I were you'd I'd get back to the main board right now.

I had the relatively rare luxury of spending a lot of time on main board today.

There was unusually , quite a lot of disruptive action, that took place after the time of the post above. The source of such, I ofcourse cannot prove but there were some general tell tale signs to it all

May I politely as possible ask how you knew chief should be back at the mainboard?

You appear to have a deep interest in defamation matters?

 

[arrowman]

May I politely as possible ask how you knew chief should be back at the mainboard?

Because I had a quick browse of the main board in between posting on this thread.

There was unusually , quite a lot of disruptive action,

I didn't see that, I didn't spend much time on the main board after that. What sort of "disruptive action" was there?

that took place after the time of the post above.

Are you implying that there was a connection?

The source of such, I ofcourse cannot prove but there were some general tell tale signs to it all

What "tell tale signs"?

You appear to have a deep interest in defamation matters?

I have an interest in a range of subjects and I often enjoy a good debate, especially where I perceive that irrelevant or illogical arguments are being used.

You read too much into very little.


Edit: On reflection, given the sensitive nature of the subject and the apparent implications in Corpsucle's post, I think I should be less obtuse.

Any implication by Corpuscles that I had anything to do with a certain thread on the main board around the time of my post quoted above, of any reporting or deletion of that thread, or that I had any prior or special knowledge that that thread was going to be or had been posted, is completely unfounded. It is the simple truth that shortly before making the post in question, I happened to browse the main board and notice a thread that appeared to be ripe for deletion given the subject of this discussion. So I made an oblique and somewhat tongue-in-cheek remark to Chief. The answers I gave to Corpuscles above, and the questions I ask, are all genuine. That is all.

 

[Corpuscles]

I thank you sincerely for your response.

Yes there was a implication but, believe it or not it, was not directly aimed at you.

The timing was uncanny... especially since drama occurred after what would be a reasonable lunch break for a tychoon like Chief
(Btw : very poor effort.. by those concerned )

Even if I thought you had any knowledge of such...

....(as yes I thought maybe with your extremely (relative to BF boffins) articulate interest.. that maybe you had some hint or vibe for backlash after certain media identities were well given a good thrashing last night on BF)

I didn't expect you to say on here "yeah I......"

IMO whilst I am guilty of some child like fun .. and push the line a bit occasionally in short time here..... that there is a duty of care by all privelged to post here to protect the best interests of this place

I thank you again

Back to topic.... his roast... is always 'burnt to a crisp'... maybe by hanging round here he might learn how to cook one up

 

[Chief]

That does not mean that a more knowledgeable person, with a bigger wallet and a bigger grievance, would not take it further. The behaviour of people (not lawyers) who are trying to address a grievance by themselves is not a demonstration of the actual legal situation.

But we’re not talking about “suing someone for refusing to provide the identity of the poster”, we’re talking about suing the publisher (BF) - and also possibly the poster.

BIG is not a publisher. Simple as that. If we previewed and approved every post we'd be a publisher, just as an ISP would be if they previewed and reviewed every web site they hosted. If Google news picks up a story in which the author defames somebody are they then in danger of being sued for distributing this information? Of course not.

The fact we have people who are on hand to correct rule infractions is neither here nor there. Warning people of the implications of an action does not mean we then become liable if they go ahead and do it. That is nonsense.

I'm not in the slightest bit worried and neither are the people who own the site.

 

[Corpuscles]

Arrowman... it would take a huge wallet to bring successful action of the type you describe because the precedent rules/law are not even grey yet, on this issue

Chief ... Google have a big enough wallet not to worry.. But I feel concern for smallish concerns who might be intimidated.. by smaller wallets. But fwiw ...no worries here unless considered a public nuisance

Common sense says .... if ya ( that person) get offended by what is said ... in a membership based environment..... then ...GROW UP & GET A BRAIN. The follow on is if government heat was eventually applied to any such IForum ....then subscriber password would be necessary to view.... sheeshh.... but lot more juicy pr0n/ defamation out there than BF

Roast.... wet soggy toast

 

[- PC -]

The timing was uncanny... especially since drama occurred after what would be a reasonable lunch break for a tychoon like Chief
(Btw : very poor effort.. by those concerned )

It was like my thread about registrations made after a connection of other boards I registered on asking and some trouble last night. It was in no way connected with what was happening, I even had a very sick picture posted in such thread. There is now a post by Chief that seems to question my knowledge etc. I wish to use arrowmans spiel to also deny such knowledge

IMO whilst I am guilty of some child like fun .. and push the line a bit occasionally in short time here..... that there is a duty of care by all privelged to post here to protect the best interests of this place

I think every now and then we let off steam but hopefully we dont go overboard

 

[relapse]

John K

It doesnt work that way, bigfooty isnt responsible for what is written in the forums. The difference with the newspaper or television is that people making those comments are paid respresentatives of the organisation.

Let me put it to you this way, if I rang up 5AA and they werent able to use their 7 second delay and said on air that Rucci was a ill researched biased reporter. Does that mean that 5AA is liable ? Of course not. Just the same as the advertiser isnt liable for anything that is submitted to the letters to the editor. They are obviously screened before publishing, but the person that submits the comments if they are not affliated with the paper or station are the ones that are responsible for comments.

As I said before Rucci just hates the fact that we can speak our mind about him and he cant deter us from doing so.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

Just the same as the advertiser isnt liable for anything that is submitted to the letters to the editor. They are obviously screened before publishing, but the person that submits the comments if they are not affliated with the paper or station are the ones that are responsible for comments.

I'm not sure that's correct.

I get your point, though.

 

[noddy]

IMO whilst I am guilty of some child like fun .. and push the line a bit occasionally in short time here..... that there is a duty of care by all privelged to post here to protect the best interests of this place

That just about says it all.

We can all have our bit of fun but there is a line that no one should cross.

With the odd exception like the subject of this thread who has made himself an open target by default.

Thanks to all for the lesson on liability.

 

[arrowman]

I thank you sincerely for your response.

No worries.

Yes there was a implication but, believe it or not it, was not directly aimed at you.

No problem, I didn't necessarily think that you were intending an implication against me, just that others might read that into it.

The timing was uncanny... especially since drama occurred after what would be a reasonable lunch break for a tychoon like Chief
(Btw : very poor effort.. by those concerned )

Yes, I thought it was an interesting coincidence too.

IIMO whilst I am guilty of some child like fun .. and push the line a bit occasionally in short time here..... that there is a duty of care by all privelged to post here to protect the best interests of this place

My feelings also. Cheers.

 

[JohnK]

John K

It doesnt work that way, bigfooty isnt responsible for what is written in the forums. The difference with the newspaper or television is that people making those comments are paid respresentatives of the organisation.

Wrong. Big Footy and its agents [paid or otherwise] are the publisher.
There is no difference with newspapers and television. Not all comments in newspapers or radio are paid for. You can make a libellous statement in an ad, in a letter, in a column or in an interview.
Repeating a libel that someone has said somewhere else is a further act of libel.

If I rang up 5AA and they werent able to use their 7 second delay and said on air that Rucci was XXX?. Does that mean that 5AA is liable ? Of course not.

Of course they are. They'd be negligent for taking that call without their 7 second delay mechanism in place.
You couldn't be more wrong.

That's why they often warn that their 7 second delay is not on. They do this to attempt to reduce their liability and to imply you that they might take a counter action against you to recover their damages if you say something libellous.

Just the same as the advertiser isnt liable for anything that is submitted to the letters to the editor. They are obviously screened before publishing, but the person that submits the comments if they are not affliated with the paper or station are the ones that are responsible for comments.

I'm sorry, Relapse, but you couldn't be further from the truth.

The Advertiser is 100% liable for anything they publish in the paper -- whether its editorial, advertising or letters.

I have no idea why you would argue against that.

Ten years ago, the Adelaide Review was sued for a libellous comment that appeared in a witty cafe ad. Four words cost the paper $50,000 to settle. If the paper had gone to court, it would cost $500,000 to defend an action it would have lost.

Contrary to what many people have said here, it does not cost much to mount a libel action. One trip to one lawyer does it. If your lawyer thinks you have a watertight case, one letter to the person who sued you is usually enough to force them to settle out of court.

Also contrary to what many people have said here, the laws of libel are not murky, not have they been untested.

If you say something which attempts to damage somebody's character or professional standing and if you do this in a malicious way, as opposed to fair comment, and if these comments are publilshed in any medium to enable a third person to view the comment, you have libelled them.

 

[marvin]

Wrong. Big Footy and its agents [paid or otherwise] are the publisher.

Again, John, that's an opinion, as yet untested either way in an Australian court. I can't see how you can claim it as definitive.

The chain of data transfer is different to conventional media:

Conventional: Writer -> edit -> publish -> reader
BigFooty: Writer -> publish-> reader -> edit

The analogy to conventional publishing is not straightforward.

 

[relapse]

Wrong. Big Footy and its agents [paid or otherwise] are the publisher.
There is no difference with newspapers and television. Not all comments in newspapers or radio are paid for. You can make a libellous statement in an ad, in a letter, in a column or in an interview.
Repeating a libel that someone has said somewhere else is a further act of libel.



Of course they are. They'd be negligent for taking that call without their 7 second delay mechanism in place.
You couldn't be more wrong.

That's why they often warn that their 7 second delay is not on. They do this to attempt to reduce their liability and to imply you that they might take a counter action against you to recover their damages if you say something libellous.



I'm sorry, Relapse, but you couldn't be further from the truth.

The Advertiser is 100% liable for anything they publish in the paper -- whether its editorial, advertising or letters.

I have no idea why you would argue against that.

Ten years ago, the Adelaide Review was sued for a libellous comment that appeared in a witty cafe ad. Four words cost the paper $50,000 to settle. If the paper had gone to court, it would cost $500,000 to defend an action it would have lost.

Contrary to what many people have said here, it does not cost much to mount a libel action. One trip to one lawyer does it. If your lawyer thinks you have a watertight case, one letter to the person who sued you is usually enough to force them to settle out of court.

Also contrary to what many people have said here, the laws of libel are not murky, not have they been untested.

If you say something which attempts to damage somebody's character or professional standing and if you do this in a malicious way, as opposed to fair comment, and if these comments are publilshed in any medium to enable a third person to view the comment, you have libelled them.

Your last statement is not totally correct.

Yes that is an ad, something that they received funds for and then published it in the paper. This is totally different senario. If I put a website up that could be considered liable, is the isp that host's the webset then liable ? no. The simple disclaimer for bigfooty that states that any comments published on this board are made by users and do not reflect the opinions of the owners of the website, suffices in relation to them having no onus of liability.

Another way to look at things, if I was in K-Mart and a customer there assualted me would K-Mart be liable ? No. If they were an employed and if they were working in the store when they assualted me then that situation K-Mart would be liable.

The simple fact is that a website forum is merely just a host for people to come on and state their opinions. The people that state these opinions provided they arent employed by bigfooty and aren't doing so in their capacity as an employee or contributer of Bigfooty, then Bigfooty isnt liable for the comments that they make. The only person in that suitation who is liable is the person that made the comment. Just the same as if wrote a message about someone on a wall and they read it, can they sue the owner of the building ? No. That's common law when it comes to litigation.

The senario you stated was an ad paid for by a company which was placed in the paper. Technically anyone that places an add in the paper is regarded as an employee and therefore the medium is liaible for litigation.

The point is that a forum is for people to post what they want, the onus of liability falls onto the people who makes the post. If we were paid by big footy to make posts on here then they would be liable, but the circumstances are that they arent.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Let me put it to you this way, if I rang up 5AA and they werent able to use their 7 second delay and said on air that Rucci was a ill researched biased reporter. Does that mean that 5AA is liable ? Of course not.

A couple of months ago on Nova in Sydney, Merrick and Rosso's show I think, a caller rang up and said she was a working girl and that one of her regular clients was NSW Minister MR XXXXXXX. The presenters didn't push the dump button in time. That Minister is now suing Nova. Not sure if he will win, but he has obviously been advised that his legal action has a good chance of succeeding.

Edit: Here is a link to the story as reported on Media Watch
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1655611.htm

 

[JohnK]

Technically anyone that places an add in the paper is regarded as an employee and therefore the medium is liaible for litigation.

Relapse, that's brand new!

The point is that a forum is for people to post what they want, the onus of liability falls onto the people who makes the post. If we were paid by big footy to make posts on here then they would be liable, but the circumstances are that they arent.

Believe that if you want. The libel laws say otherwise.

 

[Fred Phillis]

Relapse, that's brand new!



Believe that if you want. The libel laws say otherwise.

JohnK is right...it's the publisher who cops it...ie if the tiser ran a story saying person x alleges minister z is a paedophile, it's the tiser who will cop the libel/defamation, not the person who made the allegation

 

[- PC -]

Believe that if you want. The libel laws say otherwise.

I think this is going to be one of those areas that need test cases. It is also an area largely ignored by lawyers and courts because of the murkiness .

Edit : Arrowman posted the link yesterday

 

[JohnK]

Again, John, that's an opinion, as yet untested either way in an Australian court. I can't see how you can claim it as definitive.

The chain of data transfer is different to conventional media:

Conventional: Writer -> edit -> publish -> reader
BigFooty: Writer -> publish-> reader -> edit

The analogy to conventional publishing is not straightforward.

Marvin, there's a legal definition of publishing which has nothing to do with conventional or new media.

Look, I invite you to print out this whole debate and take it to a defamation lawyer for an opinion of where the liability of the moderators begins and ends.

This might cost you $500. Other moderators might chip in. If you PM me, I am willing to make a donation. Other posters with striong views on this topic might contribute too.

Without moderators, there's no BigFooty. It's not fair that you guys should be in this position.

It seems to me that BigFooty management doesn't have a real grip on this issue and others, including breach of copyright laws.
Management might be leaving you and other volunteer moderators in a potentially vulnerable situation concerning the "innocent distribution" defence.

Management might claim innocent distribution, but the moderators can't.

When the moderatoes say "We don't read every post" that's a bit like saying that the 7 second dump button isn't always on.


I think you should take steps to remove this vulnerability.

The lawyer might advise you to seek indemnity from the management of BigFooty for any libel action taken against you.

If I was in your position, that's what I would do.

 

[- PC -]

Sorry Chief, but it is you who are incorrect.

Exhibit 1: Rene Rivkin vs. whoever-it-was-he-sued-for-internet-defamation-and-won.

I also thought it was Rivkin, it was in fact Joseph Gutnick

Its a grand old flag its a high flying flag

Long-distance publication

Businessman Joseph Gutnick claimed to have been defamed on the Barron's US website, which published a story in October 2000, entitled Unholy Gains, alleging he was the "biggest customer" of a convicted tax evader and money launderer, Nachum Goldberg.

Gutnick sought legal redress only in Victoria, where he lives. But Dow Jones, which owns the website, argued publication occurred when the article was uploaded on a server in New Jersey and the case could only be heard by an American court.

The High Court rejected this, saying publication occurred when the article was downloaded by a reader, who could be in Victoria (as Barron's has 1700 subscribers in Australia), and declared the state's courts had the jurisdiction to hear the action.

The judges agreed with Gutnick's view that Dow Jones was trying to impose "an American legal hegemony" to internet publications. "The consequence... would be to confer upon one country, and one notably more benevolent to the commercial and other media than this one, an effective domain over the law of defamation, to the financial advantage of publishers in the United States, and the serious disadvantage of those unfortunate enough to be reputationally damaged outside the US," the decision says.

-----------------------

The implication of the bolded bit is that its who OWNS the site ie BIG would be liable

 

[JohnK]

JohnK is right...it's the publisher who cops it...ie if the tiser ran a story saying person x alleges minister z is a paedophile, it's the tiser who will cop the libel/defamation, not the person who made the allegation

Both can be sued and anyone else who makes the publication of the libel possible.

 

[arrowman]

Your last statement is not totally correct.

Yes that is an ad, something that they received funds for and then published it in the paper. This is totally different senario.

The fact that they received money for the ad is entirely irrelevant. The paper is responsible for everything it publishes, it doesn’t matter whether they paid someone to write it, they bought it off a wire service, it was an unpaid contribution (eg letter to the editor), a paid advertisement or an unpaid advertisement. Irrelevant.

If I put a website up that could be considered liable, is the isp that host's the webset then liable ? no.

Wrong. The ISP has a strong defence of innocent dissemination. But BigFooty is not an ISP so that is irrelevant.

The simple disclaimer for bigfooty that states that any comments published on this board are made by users and do not reflect the opinions of the owners of the website, suffices in relation to them having no onus of liability.

You state that as though it were fact. Unless you are a defamation lawyer, I do not accept it.

Another way to look at things, if I was in K-Mart and a customer there assualted me would K-Mart be liable ? No. If they were an employed and if they were working in the store when they assualted me then that situation K-Mart would be liable.

All irrelevant. You seem to think that whether moderators are paid or not is relevant here. It is not.

The simple fact is that a website forum is merely just a host for people to come on and state their opinions. The people that state these opinions provided they arent employed by bigfooty and aren't doing so in their capacity as an employee or contributer of Bigfooty, then Bigfooty isnt liable for the comments that they make. The only person in that suitation who is liable is the person that made the comment.

You are stating your opinions, or the way you would like the world to be, as though it were fact.

Just the same as if wrote a message about someone on a wall and they read it, can they sue the owner of the building ? No. That's common law when it comes to litigation.

Now I know you’re not a lawyer. The example you give has nothing to do with Common Law.

You are right, of course - the owner of the building has no liability - unless and until they could be reasonably expected to know that the material was on the wall, and failed to take action to remove it.

The senario you stated was an ad paid for by a company which was placed in the paper. Technically anyone that places an add in the paper is regarded as an employee and therefore the medium is liaible for litigation.

Well that’s just simply wrong.

The point is that a forum is for people to post what they want, the onus of liability falls onto the people who makes the post. If we were paid by big footy to make posts on here then they would be liable, but the circumstances are that they arent.

Once again, you are stating your wishes/opinion as though they were fact.