[LINK] The future of Link

[Sam Stainsby]

Craig Sanders wrote:

>On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:16:40PM +1000, Sam Stainsby wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I'm not a legal expert in any sense, but I think you will find        
>>that the 'publishers' of LINK (the people involved in providing       
>>the facility - yes, technically they are publishers) are also         
>>legally liable for defamatory material that appears on the list.      
>>As such, they should protect themselves from legal action by          
>>responding rapidly and decisively on any material that is likely      
>>to be defamatory, particularly if the person that thinks they are     
>>defamed complains to them.                                            
>>    
>>
>
>actually, no. precedent has been established several times that when
>it comes to exercising editorial control, inaction is far safer than
>partial action.
>
>once you begin to edit what is posted, you then become liable for
>whatever you DON'T edit - by failing to remove a post, you implicitly
>endorse it; whereas if your policy and practice is that your forum is
>unedited and unmoderated, you have an excellent case for claiming that
>you are not liable, you aren't endorsing anything.
>
>the safest course is to do exactly what LINK have been doing all along:
>disclaim all editorial control, and even refuse to delete anything
>from the archives for any reason without a court order or other legal
>instruction which can not just be ignored.
>
>(NOTE: I am not a lawyer. i don't even pretend to be one. this is not
>legal advice, it is just my understanding based on stuff i have read
>over the years)
>  
>
My knowledge was gained from professional legal advice given to the 
political party I was doing volunteer work for. Are you referring to 
Australian law? I would be very interested to learn of your sources, as 
it affects my current work (and could make it a lot easier!). Also, 
since the "policy and practice" is not written down, that might also be 
slightly problematic - probably not for experienced users of the forum 
though.

>  
>
>>[...] Their removal from a forum will not be a great loss, but in
>>fact a gain because people will then start expend their energies on
>>something more worthwhile. It is not unheard of that a person will
>>deliberately enter a forum and attempt to bring it to its knees by
>>causing an immense and protracted ruckus on many fronts.
>>    
>>
>
>OTOH, censorship is evil. i can see a valid argument for removing
>deliberate trolls whose intention is to disrupt and/or destroy a forum,
>but i don't think it's a good idea to remove anyone else for any reason
>- even if they're pointless and annoying
>  
>
I believe you have only seen a mild cases of defamation here in this 
forum. I have seen far, far worse. But I guess it is up to people to 
pull out of unproductive debates. Argue too long with a fool, and you 
end up looking like one (or words to that effect) ...

>
>craig
>
>  
>


-- 
Sam Stainsby
E-mail .. sam at stainsby.id.au
Tel    .. +61 3 6223 7455
Fax    .. +61 3 6223 7455
Mob    .. 0405 380 844
Jabber:    sjstainsby at jabber.org