Moon The Loon Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030422.ulibe0422/BNStory/Technology/ Two points: First, technical. Lots of folks have difficulty with the Optional Link URL due to the fact that the window accepts only limited numbers of characters. Hence posted links don't work. Mme et M. Administrator - can that be modified to tidy up the Optional Link feature? Second point. The story refers to a phenomenon that Jim had a great deal of difficulty on this forum's parent/predecessor. A few of the threads below name names and are less than complimentary. Is it time to review the forum policy in light of this recent ruling and the ghosts from the past AEF in order to tone down the rhetoric? I don't post often because I'm not associated with a lot of the issues discussed. But I enjoy the new improved (??) forum and would hate to see it shut down as was the last one. Waddy'all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr1 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Interesting article Billy. The way I read it “Anybody who posts defamatory information on the Internet…” would be the poster. This places the responsibility with the poster and would absolve the administrator or moderator of any liability, which is as it should be IMO. But then I’m no lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labtec Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 There was a thread a few months ago here that dealt with this issue. Your interpretation is not the law as it currently exists. Labtec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 The trouble is Dave that when a poster can't be identified positively, Canadian (and American) justice tends to go after the messenger. Right or wrong, that's the way it's been. Hopefully Jim will jump in with his valuable 2 cents as that was a persistent and nagging problem with his final days, as I recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Even if a poster is anonymous, their online identity should be available to the administrator of the forum. Furthermore, postings that come from any particular computer are identifiable as well. If you libel someone on line, they can get you unless you go to extraordinary lengths. And so they should. I wish a few people _would_ get charged with libel; it would sure make a positive difference to online discourse. Accepting no responsibility for the things you say online shows zero respect for the remarkable privilege you have. Furthermore, it might encourage more people to come out of anonymity. For instance, someone could say all manner of nasty things about the anonymous poster 'neo', because how can you libel an anonymous person? But you can libel Richard Roskell. But the situation is still far from settled. And of paramount importance is the issue of who is liable for the libel: is it the person making the post, or the owner of the forum, or both? One thing is certain... the ruling of this Provincial Court judge is not the last word on the issue. The general issue will be fought right to the Supreme Court, assuming they are willing to hear the case. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.