Hello everyone,
I know Kate's banning has upset many people here (and Kate), and I haven't publicly explained why this happened, because I didn't think it fair for me to comment on it while Kate was excluded.
Kate's ban has now expired so, so I think it's fair for me to try to clear a few things up.
Firstly let me say that there was nothing personal, from my point of view. I respect Kate greatly, and think she's been a wonderful forum member. She's been incredibly patient, well versed in the issues, and passionate. And funny.
The issue had nothing to do with Kate's investigation into one of our sponsored suppliers. It's another thing that she's very passionate about - keeping members safe. I respect her for doing this, and I think in this particular case it got a lot cleared up.
The reason that I had to ban Kate may seem to many to be quite technical, legalistic, or pedantic, but it is, unfortunately, something real and something I'm increasingly having to worry about as the forum has enlarged.
Kate called this supplier a "Conman". Now, if you like, you can read the word conman a multitude of ways; you can read it as someone who is shady in their dealings, or someone who is out to defraud people of their money - but the fact is, it's a very loaded term, and when applied to an individual, it becomes defamatory. Make no mistake, I have had this looked at by two solicitors, both of whom said without a shadow of a doubt, Kate calling this guy a conman was defamation - and that I was legally culpable.
Some people have stated that defamation is something that I don't need to worry about. Others have complained that they've been defamed and I never did anything about it.
Defamation only occurs as a result of real factors, such as loss of earnings, or ridicule, and only applies to real individuals. I doubt very much whether it could ever be seen to apply to an online personality, but it clearly does apply to someone like this supplier, whose personal identity is easily discoverable and, indeed, was posted on the original thread.
Let me make it clear. This applies to anyone. If I receive notification that defamation is happening, and judge this to be the case, I will remove that post and ban the poster. No ifs no buts. Supplier, member or third party.
As to whether I need to worry about it - I think yes, for three reasons:
Firstly, UK defamation law is incredibly strict. If action was taken, all the burden of proof is on ME, as the "publisher". UK law maintains that it is up to the defendant to prove that what was published was true - not the claimant that it was false. In other words, it's completely the other way round from criminal law. UK defamation law has been described as a danger to free speech worldwide, since defamation action can take place here - even if the alleged words are published elsewhere in the world.
Secondly, even if the grounds for legal action are shaky, ISPs are notoriously compliant. In other words, if someone was able to show that there was defamation against them on the forum, and the admin had not taken reasonable care to remove it - that'd be it. Kaput, and I'm in for the long haul. All the advertising and members fees that pay for the hosting, I would have to stump up myself for the next 12 months. And that's a lot of money. In fact, it'd bankrupt me.
Thirdly, is the simple moral issue. I feel I have a duty of care - and I think the substance of libel law is fair. It should not be allowed for people to make unsubstantiated comments about others, where it could have real and serious consequences on their lives.
I hope I have explained everything clearly - and I hope Kate returns, but I have to look after myself and my family first, and cannot jepardise them with the forum. It was a huge risk taking on the server in the first place, and it still is, but I wanted to make this work. As such, I'm having to be stricter now than I'd like.
Thanks for reading.
SJ
PS: Here's a nice overview of the issues: Libel on the Internet - Case Watch Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room
I know Kate's banning has upset many people here (and Kate), and I haven't publicly explained why this happened, because I didn't think it fair for me to comment on it while Kate was excluded.
Kate's ban has now expired so, so I think it's fair for me to try to clear a few things up.
Firstly let me say that there was nothing personal, from my point of view. I respect Kate greatly, and think she's been a wonderful forum member. She's been incredibly patient, well versed in the issues, and passionate. And funny.
The issue had nothing to do with Kate's investigation into one of our sponsored suppliers. It's another thing that she's very passionate about - keeping members safe. I respect her for doing this, and I think in this particular case it got a lot cleared up.
The reason that I had to ban Kate may seem to many to be quite technical, legalistic, or pedantic, but it is, unfortunately, something real and something I'm increasingly having to worry about as the forum has enlarged.
Kate called this supplier a "Conman". Now, if you like, you can read the word conman a multitude of ways; you can read it as someone who is shady in their dealings, or someone who is out to defraud people of their money - but the fact is, it's a very loaded term, and when applied to an individual, it becomes defamatory. Make no mistake, I have had this looked at by two solicitors, both of whom said without a shadow of a doubt, Kate calling this guy a conman was defamation - and that I was legally culpable.
Some people have stated that defamation is something that I don't need to worry about. Others have complained that they've been defamed and I never did anything about it.
Defamation only occurs as a result of real factors, such as loss of earnings, or ridicule, and only applies to real individuals. I doubt very much whether it could ever be seen to apply to an online personality, but it clearly does apply to someone like this supplier, whose personal identity is easily discoverable and, indeed, was posted on the original thread.
Let me make it clear. This applies to anyone. If I receive notification that defamation is happening, and judge this to be the case, I will remove that post and ban the poster. No ifs no buts. Supplier, member or third party.
As to whether I need to worry about it - I think yes, for three reasons:
Firstly, UK defamation law is incredibly strict. If action was taken, all the burden of proof is on ME, as the "publisher". UK law maintains that it is up to the defendant to prove that what was published was true - not the claimant that it was false. In other words, it's completely the other way round from criminal law. UK defamation law has been described as a danger to free speech worldwide, since defamation action can take place here - even if the alleged words are published elsewhere in the world.
Secondly, even if the grounds for legal action are shaky, ISPs are notoriously compliant. In other words, if someone was able to show that there was defamation against them on the forum, and the admin had not taken reasonable care to remove it - that'd be it. Kaput, and I'm in for the long haul. All the advertising and members fees that pay for the hosting, I would have to stump up myself for the next 12 months. And that's a lot of money. In fact, it'd bankrupt me.
Thirdly, is the simple moral issue. I feel I have a duty of care - and I think the substance of libel law is fair. It should not be allowed for people to make unsubstantiated comments about others, where it could have real and serious consequences on their lives.
I hope I have explained everything clearly - and I hope Kate returns, but I have to look after myself and my family first, and cannot jepardise them with the forum. It was a huge risk taking on the server in the first place, and it still is, but I wanted to make this work. As such, I'm having to be stricter now than I'd like.
Thanks for reading.
SJ
PS: Here's a nice overview of the issues: Libel on the Internet - Case Watch Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room
