Over the years, I've had to listen to quite few lectures on libel and slander, as part of every reporter's training. Slander is the spoken word; a forum like this could have a libel suit filed against it, for defamatory printed words.
Now, generally, there are very few libel suits filed because of the difficulty of winning. A complainant has to prove statements were false and that the author made them with malicious intent. That is really, really hard to prove in court. But we were always cautioned to state the facts and let the reader conclude whether someone is a conman or not. Writers don't make that conclusion for anyone.
We also learned there are certain words considered so insulting that they constitute libel per se. No need to prove malicious intent (the hard part to prove). The words themselves are malicious. So we can never call someone a crook, thief, liar, etc. That's an instant libel suit - and a publication will lose in court unless every i is dotted and t crossed to make the case of truth.
A forum administrator with a sense of justice will seek to maintain standards much as are required in civilized society. Set aside whether an admin can be sued. A decent admin will not tolerate law-breaking behavior from forum posters. And libeling an individual breaks the law.
I did read the thread as it was being posted and, like Emp I believe it was, saw a train wreck coming. I shut up my quick temper and just read.
SJ did what had to be done; Kate has not returned because she probably feels her free speech rights now have limits. Kate, they always did. When you overstep them, you pay a penalty. In the process, you lower yourself, unfortunately, to a level not far above the miscreant deed you called out. You're much better than that. Much.
Come back, again be the model citizen you were for many months, and feel the love that awaits you.
Now, generally, there are very few libel suits filed because of the difficulty of winning. A complainant has to prove statements were false and that the author made them with malicious intent. That is really, really hard to prove in court. But we were always cautioned to state the facts and let the reader conclude whether someone is a conman or not. Writers don't make that conclusion for anyone.
We also learned there are certain words considered so insulting that they constitute libel per se. No need to prove malicious intent (the hard part to prove). The words themselves are malicious. So we can never call someone a crook, thief, liar, etc. That's an instant libel suit - and a publication will lose in court unless every i is dotted and t crossed to make the case of truth.
A forum administrator with a sense of justice will seek to maintain standards much as are required in civilized society. Set aside whether an admin can be sued. A decent admin will not tolerate law-breaking behavior from forum posters. And libeling an individual breaks the law.
I did read the thread as it was being posted and, like Emp I believe it was, saw a train wreck coming. I shut up my quick temper and just read.
SJ did what had to be done; Kate has not returned because she probably feels her free speech rights now have limits. Kate, they always did. When you overstep them, you pay a penalty. In the process, you lower yourself, unfortunately, to a level not far above the miscreant deed you called out. You're much better than that. Much.
Come back, again be the model citizen you were for many months, and feel the love that awaits you.
The Wiz! Ps: You can post a Kitty picture and say it's you OK?
