Websites to be forced to identify trolls

[danielf]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

I wasn't want to say anything


There are clear rules as to what is considered a libellous/defamatory comment.

This is an extract from "Essential Radio Journalism" by Paul Chantler & Peter Stewart. (Ch 12, P207)

See, that's the problem:

The legal definition of defamation says that something is libellous if it:

Exposes anyone to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

Now, if I were to say 'I fart in your general direction', this could expose you to ridicule. Who is going to be the judge of what offences are serious enough to warrant handing over an IP address? Do victims have to go to court, to force web masters to hand over IP addresses (as I think they can now), or is a single complaint going to be sufficient? Who is going to decide if an 'offence' has been committed?

[Osem]

I wonder if this'll put an end to 'radical reform'......

Long story short. You're all going to jail.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Russ

On top of that there is what the CF Team consider to be libellous as well.

Sorry, but no. Not unless they are lawyers They can decide if they don't like what someone has posted and remove it. That's not the same thing.

Nobody (other than Mick, Frank and Paul) has the right to post on here and the site owners have full discretion to decide if something is inappropriate. All team members may decide that whereas something is legal, it is not appropriate to be posted on here.

Now that's a better way to put it.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Sorry, but no.

Sorry, but yes. If the Team decides something is libellous and shouldn't be posted then we will take action. This is a privately owned forum and our rules are very clear.

[Skully]

Originally Posted by Damien

Long story short. You're all going to jail.

They've got to track us all down first!

Obviously posting something on Twitter that's in your REAL NAME and has all your personal details is going to get you in trouble.

So let's fill out the absolute minimum info required (or with false personal info) and keep the internet anonymous.

[nomadking]

Could it be argued that supporting a particular X Factor contestant is exposing yourself to ridicule? Another example would be where a certain group say that a particular TV programme about their behaviour incites hatred against them, when if there is any 'hatred'(which can range from mere dislike of, to physical attacks) , it is because of their behaviour and actions.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Skully

They've got to track us all down first!

Obviously posting something on Twitter that's in your REAL NAME and has all your personal details is going to get you in trouble.

So let's fill out the absolute minimum info required (or with false personal info) and keep the internet anonymous.

That's not the info they are after, instead it'll be time/date/IP/Email and from there they'll then approach the ISP's (via a court order) for the account holders info. That's when the police will start knocking on doors and confiscating PC's as evidence

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Russ

Sorry, but yes. If the Team decides something is libellous and shouldn't be posted then we will take action. This is a privately owned forum and our rules are very clear.

You men potentially libellous then. That's fine and I agree

[chris9991]

How are they going to be able to guarantee that the person who they think placed the post is the actual person who did place the post? Unless a person is filmed (or watched) in the act of writing the post, surely it will be hard to prove?

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by chris9991

How are they going to be able to guarantee that the person who they think placed the post is the actual person who did place the post? Unless a person is filmed (or watched) in the act of writing the post, surely it will be hard to prove?

That's where forensic investigation of the computer itself comes into play..

As most trolls tend to be loners I don't think cross contamination from other users is going to be and issue

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Could it argued that supporting a particular X Factor contestant is exposing yourself to ridicule?

No. Not at all. That's personal opinion and is perfectly valid.

Another example would be where a certain group say that a particular TV programme about their behaviour incites hatred against them, when if there is any 'hatred'(which can range from mere dislike of, to physical attacks) , it is because of their behaviour and actions.

Anyone can "say" anything they like. Doesn't make it true.

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

Originally Posted by chris9991

How are they going to be able to guarantee that the person who they think placed the post is the actual person who did place the post? Unless a person is filmed (or watched) in the act of writing the post, surely it will be hard to prove?

Originally Posted by Kymmy

That's where forensic investigation of the computer itself comes into play..

Not only that but you are responsible for whoever access your computer so if you let someone libel someone else on it then you are potentially as responsible at they are. I think

[Kymmy]

We're not arguing the definition of a troll are we?? Surely that could deemed to be troll like behavior.

I'm sure that the courts in these cases will have already determined what is/is not a troll and this topic is about identifying said trolls through what I presume will be a court order.

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Not only that but you are responsible for whoever access your computer so if you let someone libel someone else on it then you are potentially as responsible at they are. I think

There's no law which specifies that you have to be aware of what anyone using your computer does so that is totally you know what.. If you're not aware then you can't be held responsible and even if you are aware unless you participate then again you can't be held responsible... (unless it's illegal content like under -age images but that's not what this thread is about)

Gawd you do come out with some rubbish at times

[Russ]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

You men potentially libellous then. That's fine and I agree

Be as pedantic as you want but I assure you many people before you have tried and failed to get one over on the team. If we decide something is something, then that's how it goes down on CF. If we decide someone is being argumentative, then they are being argumentative. If people cannot or will not abide with our decisions then there are plenty of other site they're welcome to use.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

There's no law which specifies that you have to be aware of what anyone using your computer does so that is totally you know what.. If you're not aware then you can't be held responsible and even if you are aware unless you participate then again you can't be held responsible... (unless it's illegal content like under -age images but that's not what this thread is about)

Fair enough. Maybe I was getting a couple of things mixed up.

Gawd you do come out with some rubbish at times

But there's no need to be rude about it.

Do you not think it's actually a reasonable idea that the person whose computer it is should be held responsible for any content posted from it?

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Be as pedantic as you want...

I'd call it being accurate. I have given legal definition of defamatory in an earlier post. Whether any given comment is actually defamatory can only be decided in a court of law. Which is why libel cases are brought; ie to make that determination.

If we decide something is something, then that's how it goes down on CF. If we decide someone is being argumentative, then they are being argumentative. If people cannot or will not abide with our decisions then there are plenty of other site they're welcome to use.

The discussion is about defamation not being argumentative