Author Topic: The Subject of "Naming Names"  (Read 344 times)

Origisaurus

  • Wise Sage
  • Wise Sage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
The Subject of "Naming Names"
« on: March 14, 2010, 08:04:57 am »
I occurred to me the other day that most of us have been careful about our own and others' privacy for so long that we just doesn't think to caution others.  Maybe a warning somewhere that a newbie would see it is in order.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 10:56:44 am by Origisaurus »
Avatar is from the cover of the November 2007 National Geographic.  Fair use is assumed.

The Gorn

  • Your agonizer, please. And be sure to keep the batteries charged!
  • Trusted Member
  • Wise Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 13730
  • Gornix user
    • View Profile
Re: The Subject of "Naming Names"
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2010, 09:30:42 am »
I don't know. For the most part I am against FAQs for everything except really serious stuff, because people just don't read a damned thing and don't think anything applies to them. And most professionals are far more cautious than this person is so this situation is fairly unique. I think we will just have to police each (rare) occurrence.
Gornix is protected by the GPL. *

* Gorn Public License. Duplication by inferior sentient species prohibited.


John Masterson

  • Administrator
  • Wise Sage
  • *****
  • Posts: 7889
    • View Profile
Re: The Subject of "Naming Names"
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2010, 11:44:07 am »
I'm a little unclear on this entire question.

Are we afraid that someone will bring a lawsuit to shut down the board if someone posts something that casts some business in a bad light, and in fact lies about it?

Has this ever happened to any Internet bulletin board, anywhere, ever?

I have never heard of it. But I'm not saying it didn't happen. I just have never read a news story about such a thing, and I have been actively reading on the Internet for about 20 years now.


I just looked it up and found this, for starters:

"Can a Blog Be Sued for Defamation; Isn't It All Free Speech?

This is a knotty issue, but a short answer would be, generally, that a blog owner whose blog has published obnoxious materials can be held harmless while a blogger using the site can be liable. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a protector of blog owners. It states, in section 230, that it "precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role." As to how the court sees blogs, in general, overall, the US Supreme Court has ruled that blogs are similar to news groups, saying "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."

For bloggers, all Defamation legal rules apply to their posts. But there are many complications in applying them. First, many people who post online comments, and probably those tending to make the most inflammatory and false statements, will do so anonymously, for obvious reasons. So the first threshold is identifying the blogger making Defamatory claims. Several things make this difficult, as well. Since the blogger probably will not identify themselves when the issue comes to light, there needs to be a legal process that allows identification. They can be traced by high-tech means, but a court must agree via summary judgment that all the elements of Defamation have been met. This technology does have some limits, as well, as it can be stymied through use of "Proxies," which mask the true origin of the blogger. Also, the website owner may not cooperate in the search, as well.

A recent case showed how powerful Defamation laws, applied online, can be. In November 2006, a Florida woman, Sue Scheff, was awarded $11.3 million in damages in Broward County Circuit Court, in one of the biggest awards ever tolled. The suit was filed for Internet defamation, and the jury found a Louisiana woman had posted caustic messages against the Scheff and her company, claiming she was a "con artist" and "fraud". The jury found the charges were completely false, so the Louisiana woman had no defense. Interestingly, Scheff's attorney had offered to settle the case for $35,000 before it went before the jury. "
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 01:39:56 pm by John Masterson »

The Gorn

  • Your agonizer, please. And be sure to keep the batteries charged!
  • Trusted Member
  • Wise Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 13730
  • Gornix user
    • View Profile
Where I stand as board owner
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2010, 11:53:48 am »
A new member's posts prompt this digression. We have been discussing this issue in the moderator's private "crib". I am moving the meat of this discussion to a public forum for debate and input.

Here's my opinion on the matter: if you anger some commercial entity sufficiently, they will make your life living hell through legal action or threats of legal action.

What I want to avoid is some commercial entity finding a discussion here through a search engine (for instance) and harassing me or the board members.

What would probably happen is that as board owner I would be "directed" to take down  a posting or face legal process. And someone else's exercise of marginal free speech is not a sufficiently compelling principle for me to consider being faced with lawyer bills a reasonable outcome.

Here's what happened to the author of the infamous ant-offshoring and anti-H1b visa abuse blog itgrunt.com.


As all of us on this board know about the lies, collusion and mass scale fraud that bring unqualified warm bodies into the US to displace citizen workers, the guy who writes ItGrunt.com was probably speaking the truth about this Apex body shop. But it doesn't matter. He still had to spend his own money to defend himself, and his blog and domain were taken away by an "activist" judge.

I take the view that it doesn't matter if you are right. Free speech allows us to say almost anything. What free speech doesn't guarantee is that you will not be sued over your constitutionally protected free speech.

Here is the remedy I propose:

The REALLY "juicy" stuff needs to go into non-public, registration required forums on this board.

I can move threads between forums at will.

In other words, I propose to "weasel" things. A search engine cannot pick up anything that is posted to a members only section.

Also, I propose to allow "named names" to stand for a brief period of time. But such postings should, after a week or two, get moved to a members only forum.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 12:07:22 pm by G0ddard B0lt »
Gornix is protected by the GPL. *

* Gorn Public License. Duplication by inferior sentient species prohibited.


TRexx

  • Trusted Member
  • Wise Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4455
    • View Profile
Re: The Subject of "Naming Names"
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2010, 01:23:40 pm »
I'm a little unclear on this entire question.

Are we afraid that someone will bring a lawsuit to shut down the board if someone posts something that casts some business in a bad light, and in fact lies about it?


My concern is that someone might run a Google search on me, find a post I made that differs from their opinion on some issue, and use that to not hire me.

 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf