Board Notice

[Nemesis]

Dear Posters,

The moderation team has updated some of its guidelines. Please read over them, ignorance of them is not an excuse.

Major changes include:

We have added a link to contact us if someone feels their intellectual property is being infringed upon and gives us the means to remedy the situation under the DMCA.

Also due to a landmark ruling in California concerning Libel all posters should be put on notice that your anonymity can be broken if a libel suit is brought against you. You can read about it here. This is serious and although message board administrators are not liable for what individuals post (unless they are actively facilitating/participating in the libel) you all should be careful about what you post and their consequences. BTW if there is a lawyer that can better interpret the ruling and let us know how to avoid problems we would appreciate it.

By participating here, you are accepting our terms and conditions of using our services.

Nemesis

[bookofmormontruth]

Dear Posters,

The moderation team has updated some of its guidelines. Please read over them, ignorance of them is not an excuse.

Major changes include:

We have added a link to contact us if someone feels their intellectual property is being infringed upon and gives us the means to remedy the situation under the DMCA.

Also due to a landmark ruling in California concerning Libel all posters should be put on notice that your anonymity can be broken if a libel suit is brought against you. You can read about it here. This is serious and although message board administrators are not liable for what individuals post (unless they are actively facilitating/participating in the libel) you all should be careful about what you post and their consequences. BTW if there is a lawyer that can better interpret the ruling and let us know how to avoid problems we would appreciate it.

By participating here, you are accepting our terms and conditions of using our services.

Nemesis

Fair enough and understood.

Does this include the constant defamation of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Lord's Church? Or is that just all worked out in the after-life?

[Nemesis]

That is already in the board guidelines.

[frankenstein]

Fair enough and understood.

Does this include the constant defamation of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Lord's Church? Or is that just all worked out in the after-life?

Mostly likely not in the United States, defamation laws in the United States are different than the rest of the world.

And in the United States there are different "standards" so to speak for defamation, some who (legal definition of person) puts themself in the public spot light has a higher standard to prove than a private poster on the internet. Also, it is up the person claiming defamation to prove defamation.

Here is a starter:

Defamation per se All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. "Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":^[5]

• Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
• Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
• Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
• Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)

----------------

Separate issue, what does a california ruling have to do with this board? As I understand it, the board is hosted out of Utah, is this correct?

A side note, the moderators will have to more diligent, and will have to drop the "deliberate arbitrary and capricous" manner of moderating (I think that is what one moderator said) to reduce the chance of being an accessory or facilitating defamation.

[bookofmormontruth]

Mostly likely not in the United States, defamation laws in the United States are different than the rest of the world.

And in the United States there are different "standards" so to speak for defamation, some who (legal definition of person) puts themself in the public spot light has a higher standard to prove than a private poster on the internet. Also, it is up the person claiming defamation to prove defamation.

Here is a starter:

Defamation per se All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. "Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":^[5]

• Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
• Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
• Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
• Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)

----------------

Separate issue, what does a california ruling have to do with this board? As I understand it, the board is hosted out of Utah, is this correct?

Good explanation thanks.

It has to be "harmful" and since the Lord's Church continues to prosper - that would be impossible to prove. So it would be safe to conclude that it is an after-life issue of justice.

[juliann]

Charles Glasser, global medial counsel for Bloomberg News in the US, said South Tyneside’s victory “puts Twitter and social media users on notice that they may be held accountable for what they publish”.

Amber Melville-Brown, a media law specialist counsel at London-based law firm Withers LLP, said: “This case concerning serious allegations about South Tyneside councillors could have significant repercussions across the blogosphere.

“With Twitter quietly assisting in the process, the case could have an equally significant impact on future applications by those seeking to protect their privacy and reputation anywhere in the world, as a result of activity on Twitter.”

It sets precedent for future rulings.

Anybody want to place bets on how long it will take someone to sue and identify everyone hiding out on a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith?

[frankenstein]

It sets precedent for future rulings.

Anybody want to place bets on how long it will take someone to sue and identify everyone hiding out on a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith?

or vice versa, many of LDS defenders are just as vile and insulting as those they accuse.

edited for clarity.

[juliann]

Separate issue, what does a california ruling have to do with this board? As I understand it, the board is hosted out of Utah, is this correct?

A side note, the moderators will have to more diligent, and will have to drop the "deliberate arbitrary and capricous" manner of moderating (I think that is what one moderator said) to reduce the chance of being an accessory or facilitating defamation.

The way I read it, it is the users who are going to be sued. I think the only effect on social media or boards,etc. is that they can't protect the users' identity. I wonder if a board owner who blurs the distinction between the board and user by joining in or personally supporting the libel loses all protection given to boards.

[frankenstein]

Dear Posters,

The moderation team has updated some of its guidelines. Please read over them, ignorance of them is not an excuse.

Major changes include:

We have added a link to contact us if someone feels their intellectual property is being infringed upon and gives us the means to remedy the situation under the DMCA.

By participating here, you are accepting our terms and conditions of using our services.

Nemesis

What is the standard for determining if there is a DMCA violation? Will the Board permit "fair use"? Will the Board allow for the person accused to respond? lastly, even though, a person filing a DMCA complaint MUST do so in good faith, good faith is not always used.

I posted 9 seconds of a south park video on youtube, the dialogue from the video was "any who think 9/11 was a conspiracy is a r****d", 9 seconds of a video posted as a commentary to a 911 conpiracy video is "fair use". So what I am saying is, even though a DMCA claimant must state "good faith", good faith is not always used by persons filing DMCA copyright claims.

[juliann]

or vice versa, many of LDS defenders seem just as vile and insulting as those they accuse.

There will always be some outliers. So why haven't you sued them? Are there really that many who hide behind false identities so you can't?

Trouble is, you will have to prove money damages and you have to prove that something they said isn't true. I can only think of one person who would have a slam dunk lawsuit for libel right now because not everything that was published was true and the accuser actually published the damage she caused....either very brave or very stupid.

That is the problem with getting anywhere near the mass hysteria witch hunting that I have seen online. It only takes one major lawsuit like this one to turn the tables. I sure wouldn't want my future in the hands of someone I had done some real life damage to.

And from what I gleaned from the Tanner's lawsuit against FAIR, it is where the plaintiff lives that matters. The Tanners live in Utah so that is where the case took place. So I would assume that whatever state a victim lives in is where the trial takes place. So I wouldn't be messing with anyone who lives in CA right now.

Maybe there are some lawyers here who know how it all works.

[frankenstein]

The way I read it, it is the users who are going to be sued. I think the only effect on social media or boards,etc. is that they can't protect the users' identity. I wonder if a board owner who blurs the distinction between the board and user by joining in or personally supporting the libel loses all protection given to boards.

what I meant is that, what does state ruling in california have to with a business based in Utah, if the business is Utah. A state court in Utah may not grant a subpenoa. But either way the point seems to be that MDDB will hand over confidential information.

---------

To the Moderators, will the person be notified before hand that the Board is handing over confidential information?

[bookofmormontruth]

or vice versa, many of LDS defenders seem just as vile and insulting as those they accuse.

"seem" instead of "are"? That doesn't sound self-assured, at all.

I would ask who, but I highly doubt you have anyone on your "seemingly" vile list.

[frankenstein]

"seem" instead of "are"? That doesn't sound self-assured, at all.

I would ask who, but I highly doubt you have anyone on your "seemingly" vile list.

I'll restate for your benefit:

or vice versa, many LDS defenders on that site are just as vile and insulting as those they accuse.

[Bob Crockett]

The case is meaningless. It is a filed action, not an appellate decision. Twitter has chosen to make the information available.

Of course, I believe that defenders of the LDS faith should not be anonymous. Anonymity is not the sort of dialogue the brethren probably had in mind.

[juliann]

The case is meaningless. It is a filed action, not an appellate decision. Twitter has chosen to make the information available.

The Tanner lawsuit was meaningless until it went to the 10th Circuit. Now it is case law that is being used rather extensively. Gotta start somewhere and I don't think the the internet can continue to be a law unto itself forever.

[juliann]

I'll restate for your benefit:

or vice versa, many LDS defenders on that site are just as vile and insulting as those they accuse.

But are they libeling or just being vile and insulting? I'll give you vile and insulting but I'm raising you libel. Not the same thing.

[frankenstein]

But are they libeling or just being vile and insulting? I'll give you vile and insulting but I'm raising you libel. Not the same thing.

look at the per se defamation posted above, what constitutes per se defamation has been a point of discussion on that site of late, though the discussions of various LDS defenders actions has not included defamation suits, but by analysis, the discussions have shown that per se defamation has occured - though the discussion were not about defamation.

---------------------

For the Moderators/Board owners, from the US Copyright Code.

§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online

(g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability.—

(1) No liability for taking down generally. — Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

(2) Exception. — Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection ©(1)©, unless the service provider —

(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material;

(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection ©(1)© with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and

© replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection ©(1)© that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network.

(3) Contents of counter notification. — To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider's designated agent that includes substantially the following:

(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.

(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.

© A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection ©(1)© or an agent of such person.

Now back to good faith claim, I have seen a "report" that person(s) on youtube file counterclaims, the material is allowed to be re-posted, then the same DMCA copyright violation is claimed, by filing the same claim a second time and not taking legal action, one begins to loose credibility as to "good faith" that there is a violation or copyright.

[juliann]

what I meant is that, what does state ruling in california have to with a business based in Utah, if the business is Utah. A state court in Utah may not grant a subpenoa. But either way the point seems to be that MDDB will hand over confidential information.

---------

To the Moderators, will the person be notified before hand that the Board is handing over confidential information?

I didn't understand Nemesis to be saying that at all. I think this was just giving notice that we may not always be able to depend on the ability of a website to protect our identity. I don't think this is about identity, it is about what we post. I don't think any website would willingly give up identity unless it was about major crime.

I think RRocket is a lawyer, right? He is a more reliable source, of course. However, I do know about the internet law precedent FAIR got dragged into. As it was described by one national organization that was real interested in the outcome and offered help, the Tenth Circuit was the donut hole when it came to protection of free speech in this kind of situation. FAIR and the Tanners are just little fish and established case law so I have no doubt players like Twitter will lead to the same thing. Sandra Tanner will have left a legacy but not quite the one she expected. Her name is on the losing end of a lawsuit that will be used as case law for a very long time.

[cinepro]

Fair enough and understood.

Does this include the constant defamation of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Lord's Church? Or is that just all worked out in the after-life?

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the law recognizes libel or defamation for a dead person.

[Nemesis]

what I meant is that, what does state ruling in california have to with a business based in Utah, if the business is Utah. A state court in Utah may not grant a subpenoa. But either way the point seems to be that MDDB will hand over confidential information.

---------

To the Moderators, will the person be notified before hand that the Board is handing over confidential information?

What does a California decision have to do with other states? Well sometimes they set trends in law that makes life interesting for everyone else. The case in this situation is a libel suit in England that wanted records from a company in California, where the English lawyers filled suit to get the records. It's scary and I think the ruling is a dangerous precedence which I am not sure how they got around California Slap laws. I'm not a lawyer but any information that would protect our posters is best to pass on to give everyone the heads up on just in case. Would I give over records? That is something a lot of site admins are going to have to think long and hard about, but doing so without a fight would really affect the free flow of thought/ideas that the internet has created.

Also we will always allow material that falls within the "fair use" provisions of copyright law.

Nemesis

[juliann]

look at the per se defamation posted above, what constitutes per se defamation has been a point of discussion on that site of late, though the discussions of various LDS defenders actions has not included defamation suits, but by analysis, the discussions have shown that per se defamation has occured - though the discussion were not about defamation.

Defamation laws aren't national, states have their own so I guess the moral is, make sure you know where the person you are libeling lives before you proceed. That is what is so dangerous about the internet. I can libel someone in Alaska and they can not only sue me under Alaska law, I would have to travel to an Alaskan court to defend myself. Libel doesn't happen on the "internet". It happens to the people living under the protection of the laws wherever their legal residence is.

Now back to good faith claim, I have seen a "report" that person(s) on youtube file counterclaims, the material is allowed to be re-posted, then the same DMCA copyright violation is claimed, by filing the same claim a second time and not taking legal action, one begins to loose credibility as to "good faith" that there is a violation or copyright.

I have always been under the impression that if you allow something to repeatedly occur you have approved it in some weird legal sense and can't arbitrarily yank the rug out.

[Nemesis]

look at the per se defamation posted above, what constitutes per se defamation has been a point of discussion on that site of late, though the discussions of various LDS defenders actions has not included defamation suits, but by analysis, the discussions have shown that per se defamation has occured - though the discussion were not about defamation.

---------------------

For the Moderators/Board owners, from the US Copyright Code.

§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online

(g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability.—

(1) No liability for taking down generally. — Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

(2) Exception. — Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection ©(1)©, unless the service provider —

(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material;

(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection ©(1)© with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and

© replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection ©(1)© that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network.

(3) Contents of counter notification. — To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider's designated agent that includes substantially the following:

(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.

(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.

© A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection ©(1)© or an agent of such person.

Now back to good faith claim, I have seen a "report" that person(s) on youtube file counterclaims, the material is allowed to be re-posted, then the same DMCA copyright violation is claimed, by filing the same claim a second time and not taking legal action, one begins to loose credibility as to "good faith" that there is a violation or copyright.

By doing what we did, we allowed for those that feel they have been infringed upon a way to give notice and allow us to determine the merits of their claim instead of no notice or chance to respond.

Nemesis

[Nemesis]

The case is meaningless. It is a filed action, not an appellate decision. Twitter has chosen to make the information available.

Can you please give more of your thoughts on the decision?

Nemesis

[mfbukowski]

It sets precedent for future rulings.

Anybody want to place bets on how long it will take someone to sue and identify everyone hiding out on a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith?

Great idea- that sounds like a lot more fun than video games!

I have a few in the crosshairs already!

[ttribe]

Trouble is, you will have to prove money damages and you have to prove that something they said isn't true. I can only think of one person who would have a slam dunk lawsuit for libel right now because not everything that was published was true and the accuser actually published the damage she caused....either very brave or very stupid.

You're way off base. Assembling a consolidation of links to the person's OWN WORDS in context, does not (under any circumstance I can imagine) constitute libel.