Forum List | Sticky
Start Previous 1 -- [ 2 ] -- Next End| Topic: Blackpool to sue football forum |
|---|
| 21. Author: Stanza Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 16:01 "...... providing a service provider with a defence until such time as it obtains knowledge of defamatory material, provided that it acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material." Which is what the dafc.net administrators do, and confirms what I was saying about the need for them to respond properly to any complaint or report of defamation or other possible offence. BTW, both Facebook and Twitter adopt the same principle, whereby every report of an offending post or tweet is investigated (or so they say!) It might be worth noting that in Sep 2014 the Court of Justice of the EU confirmed, in the context of the EU's E-Commerce Directive, that online news publishers can be held responsible for defamatory comments or other illegal material on their websites regardless of what business model they adopt. _________________  Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club (DADSC) when you shop online with one of 8000 firms: http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc[Reply |
| 22. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 16:46 I don't think I am even debating what dafc.net are doing anymore infact I even posted the below quote and cited the law as it stands "Edit to say- since the law isn't clear as far as I aware then I don't blame admin for taking precaution" What I am saying is in my opinion I don't think they should be liable in any way and the law as it stands is an ass. I do not think they should be liable for what other people post even if they run the website Post Edited (Tue 10 Feb 17:22) Reply |
| 23. Author: Crabbit Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 16:51 But how then do you hold folk accountable? A lot of folk on here choose to be anonymous  Reply |
| 24. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 17:19 Crabbit, Tue 10 Feb 16:51 They can request ip addresses which the courts can ask the site for. If someone's using a fake one then thats ups to the courts to deal with in a ideal world. The site owners have done all they can at a reasonable level. You find criminals who are guilty not the next best person to satisfy finding someone imo (I know they person might not be a criminal but its the same logic) Post Edited (Tue 10 Feb 17:28) Reply |
| 25. Author: The Lawyer Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 17:37 PPP sorry for the delay I responding. I think you have pretty much answered your own question. The law recognises that the owners of social media sites, and a forum like ours, have no control over what is posted. However, if they do become aware of an allegedly defamatory statements they need to act promptly if they wish to avoid potentially becoming a party to any subsequent legal action. It would be highly unlikely that a Scottish court would award any substantial damages against a forum like ours, even if comments were clearly defamatory, provided the administrators acted reasonably promptly to remove the offending comments after the matter has been drawn to their attention. Unfortunately this is by no means the first example of litigation against website owners. Paraid Reply |
| 26. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 17:41 Thanks Lawyer. One last question if possible and relates to this part of your answer. The Lawyer, Tue 10 Feb 17:37 When you say become aware of a remark does that mean by complaint? Or do they have to make a judgement call themselves? If its the latter it is surely a subjective opinion from someone (an admin person) who chances are doesn't have a law degree. Reply |
| 27. Author: The Lawyer Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 19:14 Interesting question. There is no doubt that where a complaint has been made action is required. It would be a heavy burden to require an administrator on say Facebook to read every post so there has to be some limit on what an administrator needs to do, in the absence of a specific complaint. Nonetheless, if the site administrator sees a post which he or she reasonably believes to be potentially defamatory there may be justification in removing the post in some limited circumstances. The classic example is where someone who believes he has been defamed e.g Lord McAlpine (or is determined to protect his reputation like Robert Maxwell) simply issues or threatens to issue writs against anyone who is in anyway involved. I believe Dot net was at one point in the not too distant past where it faced this prospect. Paraid Reply |
| 28. Author: Patons Premier Pars Date: Tue 10th Feb 2015. 21:36 Cheers Reply |
Post your Reply
Your Message:
By using your account you have implicitly accepted the DAFC.net Forum Rules and agree to be bound by them. You also agree that you will take sole responsibility for your post and indemnify dafc.net on all matters and costs. Refrain from making any potentially libelous comments about anyone
- - -