On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 19:54:40 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 10/8/13 3:34 AM, Chris wrote:
>> A short OT question: A friend of mine wants to set up a forum or mailing list and would like to know
>> to which extent the moderator or owner of the forum is liable, if some random troll or member puts
>> libelous, insulting or racist remarks on the forum. I guess it depends mainly on national laws, but
>> is there some general "I'm not responsible for anything"-clause in the terms & conditions that
>> subscribers have to accept. If not, it would be very dangerous to set up a forum or mailing list.
>> Thanks for any hints, links or tricks.
>
> If you want a legal opinion, ask a lawyer.  Seriously.

Was just wondering if anyone on this forum has any experience with these things. After a little bit of research I've come to the conclusion that it's a minefield. The old Windows slogan applies: Click and pray!

PS Ask a lawyer? You're kidding. Seriously.

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:42:20 +0200
Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
> 
> But that is "unlikely", not "impossible".  Someone who had a bone to pick with you could probably still launch suit.  In some circumstances I wouldn't bet against that happening if somebody's goal was to shut down a website.

Yea, I don't know if it's any different in other countries, but here in the US anyone with money can sue anyone else (with or without money) for anything and cause them boatloads of trouble *regardless* of whether the case even has any merit at all (IANAL, of course). Heck, it's a common, well-established tactic for corporations.

Personally, I wouldn't worry so much about it because there really isn't *anything* you can do to *truly* "cover your ass" (Haters gonna hate...and sue, merit or not), all you can ever really do is make a best-faith effort.

Obviously don't take this as true legal advice, just one random curmudgeon's opinion ;)

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 21:24:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Obviously don't take this as true legal advice, just one
> random curmudgeon's opinion ;)

Indeed.  In the UK I'd like to see the lawsuit that would reach court for "This bloke on the internet told me it was like this and he turned out to be wrong!"

In the US ... not so sure. :-P

So, just to be careful, disclaimer again: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

On 10/8/2013 1:38 PM, Chris wrote:
> Was just wondering if anyone on this forum has any experience with these things.
> After a little bit of research I've come to the conclusion that it's a
> minefield. The old Windows slogan applies: Click and pray!
>
> PS Ask a lawyer? You're kidding. Seriously.

The bottom line is anyone can sue you for anything, at least in the US, regardless of any merits of the case. There is nothing you can do to guarantee this will not happen.

But I do suggest you get business liability insurance. That's what it's for, and ask your agent the hard questions as to what it does / does not cover, and be sure and get that in writing.

I also suggest that you, as a forum operator, make a reasonable effort to remove libelous/abusive/illegal posts. It's the right thing to do, regardless of whether you'd get sued or not. And while everyone in the US has free speech rights, as a non-government forum operator, you are under no obligation to provide anyone with a forum to say things you don't agree with on your nickel.

As for legal advice, such advice on the internet is worth what you paid for it - nothing. Brad's right in that if you want real legal advice, hire a lawyer.

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 10:34:23 UTC, Chris wrote:
> A short OT question: A friend of mine wants to set up a forum or mailing list and would like to know to which extent the moderator or owner of the forum is liable, if some random troll or member puts libelous, insulting or racist remarks on the forum. I guess it depends mainly on national laws, but is there some general "I'm not responsible for anything"-clause in the terms & conditions that subscribers have to accept. If not, it would be very dangerous to set up a forum or mailing list. Thanks for any hints, links or tricks.

It is country dependant.

In France the host is responsible if he/she has been warned about the content and choose not to react. Otherwise, only the content producer is responsible.

On 10/8/2013 2:24 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Heck, it's a common, well-established tactic for corporations.

It's hardly just for corporations. Nuisance lawsuits are commonly filed by individuals, too. Pretty much all corporations above a certain size have a continuous stream of them filed against them by people hoping the corp will find it cheaper to settle than to fight & win.

On 10/8/2013 2:50 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> So, just to be careful, disclaimer again: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal
> advice.

Isn't it sad that we feel compelled to have to insert such disclaimers?

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 22:27:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 1:38 PM, Chris wrote:
>> Was just wondering if anyone on this forum has any experience with these things.
>> After a little bit of research I've come to the conclusion that it's a
>> minefield. The old Windows slogan applies: Click and pray!
>>
>> PS Ask a lawyer? You're kidding. Seriously.
>
> The bottom line is anyone can sue you for anything, at least in the US, regardless of any merits of the case. There is nothing you can do to guarantee this will not happen.
>
> But I do suggest you get business liability insurance. That's what it's for, and ask your agent the hard questions as to what it does / does not cover, and be sure and get that in writing.

This makes perfect sense. Thanks for the advice.

> I also suggest that you, as a forum operator, make a reasonable effort to remove libelous/abusive/illegal posts. It's the right thing to do, regardless of whether you'd get sued or not. And while everyone in the US has free speech rights, as a non-government forum operator, you are under no obligation to provide anyone with a forum to say things you don't agree with on your nickel.

The question always remains what is libelous or abusive?

> As for legal advice, such advice on the internet is worth what you paid for it - nothing. Brad's right in that if you want real legal advice, hire a lawyer.

You're right. But where I live it is sometimes better to read the whole legislation and court rulings yourself than to ask a lawyer. I've heard of cases where lawyers knew less about the current legislation than their clients.

On 10/9/2013 2:01 AM, Chris wrote:
> The question always remains what is libelous or abusive?

It's usually pretty obvious if you apply common sense. I also suggest simply googling for the what libel and slander actually are (many people have false assumptions about that).



> You're right. But where I live it is sometimes better to read the whole
> legislation and court rulings yourself than to ask a lawyer. I've heard of cases
> where lawyers knew less about the current legislation than their clients.

Lawyers vary enormously in the quality of their advice. They're a lot like programmers in that regard :-)

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 18:15:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/9/2013 2:01 AM, Chris wrote:
>> The question always remains what is libelous or abusive?
>
> It's usually pretty obvious if you apply common sense. I also suggest simply googling for the what libel and slander actually are (many people have false assumptions about that).

Yes and no. I know people who have taken or threatened to take legal action against others because they said something like "I don't think this is the best way to say or do it. I propose ..." Of course they will never succeed, but the hassle of having to deal with letters from solicitors is just annoying. I've seen the most ridiculous cases, things you couldn't make up. The problem is that unlike in the U.S. in the Republic of Ireland and GB the libel law is ridiculously overprotective. I do wonder how journalists cope with it.

Mind you, that you apply common sense does not mean that others do so too.


> Lawyers vary enormously in the quality of their advice. They're a lot like programmers in that regard :-)

In fairness, it's not only the lawyers, it's also the legislation that is often highly ambiguous. So lawyer A tells you something, and lawyer B will tell you something completely different. That's why it's best to check out court rulings and the different interpretations judges give the law in question. Else you pay $500 and all you know is "it might but it might not be the case".

Anyway, it's got nothing to do with D.