Board Notice

[Nemesis]

Rcrocket,

Few questions about this case.

1. California has strict slap laws how was the supeona issued if it has laws protecting anonymous users?

2. Could those anon users still use it in an anti-slap suit against twitter?

3. As a host how can this message board protect itself from giving information out when it comes to libel.

Nemesis

[frankenstein]

I'm sorry to keep harping on that but the Tanner lawsuit was laughable. It still required a defense.

I think you are given too much stock to this suit. As far as I can tell the suit was about cybersquatting and anti-competition issue, and nothing related to libel. Some well known person who name is Spike sued "Spike TV" essentially making the same claims as the Tanners and he also lost.

[Nemesis]

I think you are given too much stock to this suit. As far as I can tell the suit was about cybersquatting and anti-competition issue, and nothing related to libel. Some well known person who name is Spike sued "Spike TV" essentially making the same claims as the Tanners and he also lost.

I think she stated more than once that's not her point. We have been threatened more than once on this board for various things each time had no standing, we each have a responsibility and that our comfort in anonymity can be broken if this case sets a trend.

Nemesis

[Bond...James Bond]

Congratulations to your son.

My four year-old daughter said "I wanna be a NINJA!" the other day. That's almost as good, right?

I think you mean "daughter" Jack since it's Juliann's son-in-law.

(Unless it is her son, in that case kudos for your progressive thought Juliann.)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

But it still comes back to how much it costs to get that protection. I'm sorry to keep harping on that but the Tanner lawsuit was laughable. It still required a defense.

Even wonder how much tithing goes to pay for legal fees for the Church just to defend against such suits. I personally think that is the aim because of our deep pockets “collectively speaking”.

[Bob Crockett]

Rcrocket,

Few questions about this case.

1. California has strict slap laws how was the supeona issued if it has laws protecting anonymous users?

2. Could those anon users still use it in an anti-slap suit against twitter?

3. As a host how can this message board protect itself from giving information out when it comes to libel.

Nemesis

1&2: The Anti-SLAPP legislation says nothing about protecting anonymous users. It just makes prosecution of defamation cases more costly. Filing a SLAPP motion will stop a subpoena but not for long if the case has some merit.

3.

a. Don't ever collect personal information or email addresses -- or, alternatively -- force every user to make public their email address and any personal information they pass along. (Still, they can seek IP addresses. If you force them to make public this personal information, yes, it can be bogus or a pseudo, but at least that is all you'll have and nobody will waste their time with a subpoena.)

b. When they sign your agreement, make them specifically initial a paragraph that says: "By participating on this board and initialling this paragraph I agree not to sue another participant or this Board and its operators for defamation or invasion of privacy, nor will I assist others in doing so. I also forever waive any right of process of law to subpoena or compel the production of another user's personal information." Now, this won't stop a third party from suing for the information, which is what is happening in the twitter case. But it will put a major damper on some participant threatening action.

c. A mod should never have a sock puppet other than the the official ones. A mod should never contribute to a discussion other than to tell people to follow the rules. A major bummer, I'd say. I'd never want to be a mod. Boring.

[Nemesis]

1&2: The Anti-SLAPP legislation says nothing about protecting anonymous users. It just makes prosecution of defamation cases more costly. Filing a SLAPP motion will stop a subpoena but not for long if the case has some merit.

3.

a. Don't ever collect personal information or email addresses -- or, alternatively -- force every user to make public their email address and any personal information they pass along. (Still, they can seek IP addresses. If you force them to make public this personal information, yes, it can be bogus or a pseudo, but at least that is all you'll have and nobody will waste their time with a subpoena.)

b. When they sign your agreement, make them specifically initial a paragraph that says: "By participating on this board and initialling this paragraph I agree not to sue another participant or this Board and its operators for defamation or invasion of privacy, nor will I assist others in doing so. I also forever waive any right of process of law to subpoena or compel the production of another user's personal information." Now, this won't stop a third party from suing for the information, which is what is happening in the twitter case. But it will put a major damper on some participant threatening action.

c. A mod should never have a sock puppet other than the the official ones. A mod should never contribute to a discussion other than to tell people to follow the rules. A major bummer, I'd say. I'd never want to be a mod. Boring.

Wow thanks for all this info. We will discuss it as a mod team.

Nemesis

[ttribe]

b. When they sign your agreement, make them specifically initial a paragraph that says: "By participating on this board and initialling this paragraph I agree not to sue another participant or this Board and its operators for defamation or invasion of privacy, nor will I assist others in doing so. I also forever waive any right of process of law to subpoena or compel the production of another user's personal information." Now, this won't stop a third party from suing for the information, which is what is happening in the twitter case. But it will put a major damper on some participant threatening action.

This strikes me as granting a license for abuse by some people. Am I missing something?

[Bob Crockett]

This strikes me as granting a license for abuse by some people. Am I missing something?

How true. But it is no different than signing a release when you rent snowmobiles. A release might encourage the snowmobile owner to be sloppy in the way he rents his snowmobiles if he knows he is getting a release.

If a new board member agrees not to sue for libel or defamation as a condition to participation, sure it is that some joker will just say what he wants without fear of any retribution. And, it may indeed be the case that such an agreement isn't enforceable because the agreement isn't between the perpetrator and the victim.

But, what it will do is reduce the prospect of the innocent board owner from being in the cross-hairs of a discovery fight. Both the perp and the victim will have signed an agreement with the innocent board not to subject the innocent board to a discovery free-for-all.

I rather encourage the idea of requiring all users to have in their profile a mandatory email address and any other personal information they might want to share. If the personal information is bogus or real, it won't matter. It will be out in the open. It isn't the board's obligation to police the email information. (But, if verification is required the email has to have some fleeting reality.) Again, that won't stop interest in IP info, but the IP address can only get you so far.

[ttribe]

How true. But it is no different than signing a release when you rent snowmobiles. A release might encourage the snowmobile owner to be sloppy in the way he rents his snowmobiles if he knows he is getting a release.

Speaking only for myself, it might discourage me from registering at all. If I am signing away my right to defend myself from libelous attack, I think I'll skip such a message board.

[Bob Crockett]

Speaking only for myself, it might discourage me from registering at all. If I am signing away my right to defend myself from libelous attack, I think I'll skip such a message board.

Then don't rent that snowmobile.

[ttribe]

Then don't rent that snowmobile.

I hate snow.

[frankenstein]

Then don't rent that snowmobile.

ttribe, a second option, is join, and if you are defamed, then sue, how many message boards are going to pay for an attorney to defend against a subpeona? Now a message board might seek donation for said defense.

[Calm]

ttribe, a second option, is join, and if you are defamed, then sue, how many message boards are going to pay for an attorney to defend against a subpeona? Now a message board might seek donation for said defense.

But if someone gave his word not to sue and did...that would be breaking his word, would it not? And while it might not bother some, I wouldn't be surprised if this would bother ttribe because he sees giving his word not to sue resulting in giving up the right to sue, iow ttribe would be a man of his word even if harmed by such.

[ttribe]

ttribe, a second option, is join, and if you are defamed, then sue, how many message boards are going to pay for an attorney to defend against a subpeona? Now a message board might seek donation for said defense.

Personally, I can't imagine a situation under which I would feel compelled to sue the board directly. Nevertheless, if some wannabe "Internet tough guy" tries to malign my personal or professional reputation in a libelous manner, I would want to reserve the right to pursue a legal remedy if that's necessary against an individual poster. Signing away that right seems foolhardy to me.

[Calm]

Personally, I can't imagine a situation under which I would feel compelled to sue the board directly.

Especially since the moderators would be working to remove any libelous material as soon as they were made aware of it.

Is there some way to insert into option b the board owner's right to waive the agreement in the case s/he believe libel has occurred? Granted that leaves one relying on someone else for a determination, but unless one is overly sensitive, it seems to me the moderators have in the past been quite cautious about personal info and damaging comments being allowed on the board so it doesn't seem to be a huge leap of faith they would make decent decisions.

[Calm]

Interesting occurrence explained in In the News thread considering what has been discussed in this thread.

[Nemesis]

Interesting occurrence explained in In the News thread considering what has been discussed in this thread.

http://www.mormondia...-longer-online/

Shutting a board down is not what I had in mind; we were just making it known that our policy is to protect the board and changes to guidelines to achieve this mission. The internet/law is a wacky thing that really needs to get worked out.

Nemesis

[mfbukowski]

Especially since the moderators would be working to remove any libelous material as soon as they were made aware of it.

Is there some way to insert into option b the board owner's right to waive the agreement in the case s/he believe libel has occurred? Granted that leaves one relying on someone else for a determination, but unless one is overly sensitive, it seems to me the moderators have in the past been quite cautious about personal info and damaging comments being allowed on the board so it doesn't seem to be a huge leap of faith they would make decent decisions.

I recently had a situation here where someone posted untrue material potentially damaging to my reputation, and the mods were great in deleting it.

[Calm]

Shutting a board down is not what I had in mind; we were just making it known that our policy is to protect the board and changes to guidelines to achieve this mission. The internet/law is a wacky thing that really needs to get worked out.

Nemesis

I would think with the recent legal happenings servers in general may become more cautious, maybe even overly cautious. Being proactive (rather than reactive) in avoiding problems down the line like you are attempting to do makes greater sense, imo.

[Nemesis]

I would think with the recent legal happenings servers in general may become more cautious, maybe even overly cautious. Being proactive (rather than reactive) in avoiding problems down the line like you are attempting to do makes greater sense, imo.

I'm disappointing in some companies right now, I am they are just trying to protect their own interests but at what costs?

Nemesis

[Calm]

I'm disappointing in some companies right now, I am they are just trying to protect their own interests but at what costs?

Nemesis

It does seem to be overkill and it seems strange to me that they would not try to work something out with at least with a paying customer prior to completely pulling the plug, you would think there would be some sort of loyalty to their customer base.

[frankenstein]

It does seem to be overkill and it seems strange to me that they would not try to work something out with at least with a paying customer prior to completely pulling the plug, you would think there would be some sort of loyalty to their customer base.

simply answer, and i believe it has to do with one being born every minute.