...................
My question is more along the lines of how does ECF feel about the concept of these things being considered libel.
I guess it is hard to untangle the opinion from the law of the land. And I guess it seems the law of the land in this respect has very critical differences.
I am coming to the conclusion that the laws relating to libel in the UK are in serious need of update.
Actually ECF doesn't really differentiate between the various local implications of discussion issues, it would be too difficult for us to do as we are global.
In practice, what we do is place a "Would you really say or do that if you were standing face to face with the other person?" limitation on members. To be frank, a lot of issues are caused by 'web bravery', and just wouldn't exist if people were talking face to face. It's true that a certain amount more freedom than is available in the physical world can be useful, but there is a limit. You might call it moderation; we would probably call it realism. You can see what the consequences are if people are given free reign to go as far as they like.
So here, direct insults are not allowed; defamatory statements that cannot be seen immediately to be true are not allowed. On the other hand, negative reviews of products are allowed, because people have a right to know if something is being over-hyped. The vendor can respond if they wish.
We therefore run what could be called a 'reasonable discussion' policy: nothing that a sensible and reasonable person would consider unacceptable generally gets past the Moderators, although they can't be everywhere at once. If we are notified of material that someone finds unacceptable then it gets looked at. Sometimes it is removed, sometimes it isn't - it has to pass the tests just outlined.
Because we operate a 'reasonableness' policy; because we can call on the resources (of all types) needed if necessary; and because ultimately it would not be to their benefit; vendors with some sort of an issue prefer to talk with us rather than attack us.
Another factor that people should consider is the growing number of commercial disputes in the ecig arena. Many problems can be traced back to that as the cause. It's certainly a major issue for us, because the majority of serious adversarial communications we see are based on this problem, in one way or another. It used to be member issues; that has all changed now and commercial disputes or similar issues are the main cause of friction. Although the eternal triangle of the membership-forum-vendors will always figure strongly, vendor vs vendor disputes of one kind or another are increasing rapidly.
But forum owners need to recognise that in the modern world they are performing a balancing act, and if it goes wrong, there are consequences. It's a very difficult juggling act indeed, some days. Supplying a service to one group means that, of necessity, another is disadvantaged; pleasing one person alienates someone else. You can't please all the people all the time. Assuming you get it right most of the time, though, it makes it hard for any one person or group to claim they have been injured.
This is the web, and a forum is the right place for free and frank discussion. There is a line beyond which people shouldn't go however, just as they wouldn't in more physical circumstances. That principle is universal and it doesn't matter what country it is applied to. When things get heated, we call upon our skilled jugglers, aka Mods, and just hope they get it right.
