It must be true then

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="First Jedi"]"First Jedi, in libel it''s not the damages that kill you, it''s the costs. The defendant had to pay his costs AND the winner''s costs. Ouch. "

Yeah, but I was thinking they did that early, so the costs where low (for both parties), rather than take ages, win the case and have massive costs of your own as they''ve built up...[/quote]First Jedi, I don''t know how early this was settled but even if it was quite early the costs will still have been substantial. Any half-decent libel solicitor costs £200 an hour plus VAT and once the barristers get involved, which is pretty much bound to have been the case even in an out-of-court settlement, then the costs sky-rocket. And in this case the loser had to pay both sides'' costs. As I said, ouch.But, leaving aside this particular case, the general point is that libel is potentially ruinous, and posters need to bear that in mind.

[Ian 1,129]

The point is that Facebook make huge profits from allowing people to use their website.If they are not providing adequate moderation, and effectively allowing their users to do what they want including posting libellous information, and importantly, profiting from it then I think they are partly responsible for at least attempting to vet the content.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="First Jedi"]"First Jedi, in libel it''s not the damages that kill you, it''s the costs. The defendant had to pay his costs AND the winner''s costs. Ouch. " Yeah, but I was thinking they did that early, so the costs where low (for both parties), rather than take ages, win the case and have massive costs of your own as they''ve built up...[/quote]

First Jedi, I don''t know how early this was settled but even if it was quite early the costs will still have been substantial. Any half-decent libel solicitor costs £200 an hour plus VAT and once the barristers get involved, which is pretty much bound to have been the case even in an out-of-court settlement, then the costs sky-rocket. And in this case the loser had to pay both sides'' costs. As I said, ouch.

But, leaving aside this particular case, the general point is that libel is potentially ruinous, and posters need to bear that in mind.[/quote]

Your final par is indeed the ultimate message that people need to remember - unless you are going to take out Media Liability insurance and that in itself is fairly expensive and seems a little extreme for a football message board!

 

[First Jedi 0]

"Your final par is indeed the ultimate message that people need to remember "

We can agree on that then! :)

[Strappy 0]

[quote user="I.S."]If they are not providing adequate moderation, and effectively allowing their users to do what they want including posting libellous information, and importantly, profiting from it then I think they are partly responsible for at least attempting to vet the content.[/quote]

Wouldn''t that be analogous to holding the landlord of a pub responsible for people slandering public figures in a discussion over a pint?

Facebook won''t introduce moderation as the implied message would then be that you can have an online presence provided you abide by our rules, which is censorship.

The law hasn''t caught up with the internet - it''s not a print medium but it is a textual one with a saved history; it''s new and attempting to apply old laws to it won''t work.

[First Jedi 0]

"The point is that Facebook make huge profits from allowing people to use their website.If they are not providing adequate moderation, and effectively allowing their users to do what they want including posting libellous information, and importantly, profiting from it then I think they are partly responsible for at least attempting to vet the content."

If they moderated every post, they''d be MORE liable than now when they don''t.

[First Jedi 0]

"Facebook won''t introduce moderation as the implied message would then be that you can have an online presence provided you abide by our rules, which is censorship."

No... Facebook can technically do what they like, it''s their site.... it''s not censorship, it''s them doing what they like with their site. Technically you *do* post on their site, under their rules. You should read their Terms and Conditions... if you don''t abide by them, you''ll be kicked off. That isn''t censorship, no more than you saying "leave my house if you slag me off" is censorship.

[First Jedi 0]

"Wouldn''t that be analogous to holding the landlord of a pub responsible for people slandering public figures in a discussion over a pint?"

But this bit is bang on!

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Strappy"]

Wouldn''t that be analogous to holding the landlord of a pub responsible for people slandering public figures in a discussion over a pint?

[/quote]

Which happened reasonably regularly in days of yore ... charge of ''keeping a disorderly alehouse''

[First Jedi 0]

"Which happened reasonably regularly in days of yore ... charge of ''keeping a disorderly alehouse''"

They''ve got asbo''s for that now! :D

[Ian 1,129]

[quote user="First Jedi"]"Wouldn''t that be analogous to holding the landlord of a pub responsible for people slandering public figures in a discussion over a pint?"

But this bit is bang on![/quote]Hardly bang on, is it?A pub is a place whose primary objective is to serve beverages (including alcoholic) to it''s patrons. Therefore, the pub has to adhere to laws regarding alcohol, entertainment in a public place, ensuring that patrons don''t become disorderly and so on. If somebody in the pub does become unruly/abusive, then it IS their responsibility to kick them out/stop them doing it.Facebook is a site whose primary objective is to allow people to communicate, and they make a lot of money out of this. Why should they be allowed to get away with facilitating libelous communications, without at least making the effort to adhere to libel laws?

[First Jedi 0]

"and they make a lot of money out of this"

No, not that much, actually... Facebook aren''t very profitable, despite their popularity.

"without at least making the effort to adhere to libel laws?"

They are legal, they are not liable - as I''ve stated if you''d bother to read my posts and the links I provided... try it... go on... dare you!

[Ian 1,129]

[quote user="First Jedi"]"and they make a lot of money out of this"

No, not that much, actually... Facebook aren''t very profitable, despite their popularity.

"without at least making the effort to adhere to libel laws?"

They are legal, they are not liable - as I''ve stated if you''d bother to read my posts and the links I provided... try it... go on... dare you![/quote]Maybe not profitable, but the company is valued at billions of dollars, so somebody is doing well out of it.Your links all refer to American laws, so this wouldn''t cover sites hosted in other countries. Besides which, there are good points made about TV and radio broadcasting in that thread; how come TV/Radio stations are responsible for all their broadcasts, even if it was for example, a live phone-in, when a website apparently isn''t?!We obviously need clarification, and probably new laws passed in this country!

[Mello Yello 2,281]

I actually don''t give a fug about libel.....because you''re all actually benefit cheats, train robbers, drug dealers, jewel thieves, fly tippers, arsonists, fascists, car ringers, sandal wearers, mobsters, losers, anarchists, gay, lesbian, straight, masochists, punks, goths, insane, cheating on your partners, morose, aliens, alcoholics, pacifists, bimbos, clinically obese, dwarfs, on the run, kleptomaniacs, nutters, liars, sad, trainspotters, Abba fans, religious freaks, money launderers, distant, effeminate, chavs, vegetarians, scum fans, spotty porno stunt bums, nose pickin'' bogey eaters, run like girls, gamblers, vampires, ugly, idle, sick-note bedsore bores, adore Jeremy Kyle,emos, naturists, bullies, extortionists, weirdos, weak shandy drinkin'' lightweights, slow, ginger, stoned, dull, illegitimate, speeders, trekkies, illegal immigrants, transvestites, bounty hunters, unemployable, bald, arrogant, crap dancers, gun runners, left-wing, morbid, scared of the Daleks, shop at QD, got 12 fingers and 15 toes, thick, scared of the dark, soap dodgers, criminals, lady-boys, odd, car-boot junkies, AWOL, vertically challenged, loners, egotists, retarded, squatters, bullsh*tters, lost, simpletons and cowards.......FACT!

(Although, not necessarily in the above order)......

[blahblahblah 2]

Most of that may be true, but i draw the line at Scum fans.For shame, Mello... [:)]

[Mello Yello 2,281]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Most of that may be true, but i draw the line at Scum fans.

For shame, Mello... [:)]
[/quote]

You''re Neil Doncaster....

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Most of that may be true, but i draw the line at Scum fans.For shame, Mello... [:)][/quote]

You''re Neil Doncaster....

[/quote]You take that back you total Wynn Jones you !  I hope you step in a Ferrari !

[First Jedi 0]

"Maybe not profitable, but the company is valued at billions of dollars, so somebody is doing well out of it"

Yep, without doubt...

"Your links all refer to American laws, so this wouldn''t cover sites hosted in other countries. "

Erm... where do you think Facebook is hosted?

"Besides which, there are good points made about TV and radio broadcasting in that thread; how come TV/Radio stations are responsible for all their broadcasts, even if it was for example, a live phone-in, when a website apparently isn''t?!"

Good question - not being a radio expert, I haven''t honestly got a clue. I certainly don''t think that the radio station *should* be liable, for a person on live phone-in to commit slander (while the person themselves are and should!), but what the law says, I don''t know. *shrugs*

The law is clear on print media, since it''s static, and therefore it''s very black and white (da boom tish!)

"We obviously need clarification, and probably new laws passed in this country!"

Without doubt!

[Ian 1,129]

I''m sure Facebook is hosted in California somewhere, but to complicate matters I''m sure they have a global CDN of some sort [;)]! Of course, it''s not just Facebook that would be affected by libel laws but numerous other websites, including UK ones.