support and friendly banter

[Matt Allgood]

Different outlooks are fine as long as they are within the boundaries of acceptable Forum conduct. If not, they are not fine and we have to remove them - as you may have experienced.

Regards.

[Sajeev]

Yep, even a simple games of football has rules otherwise it will turn in to Rugby, sorry i mean bedlam (as long as goal posts are not being moved, smoke screens used, the referee is neutral and its not one rule for one and another rule for another, etc, which one way our another has been expressed), also exits/signs clearly marked to warn people in case of "fire" is needed. No one is making up there is fire, when there is not, otherwise I'll make sure "their nose is out of joint"

[Hari Navarro]

This is a question for Matt:
I have asked this before and not had a direct answer...

ok 'What is the law that covers what is said on these internet forums? What action, if any can be taken by people who feel that they have been slandered? Is this law international? Is there a europeon law that covers this? Does the law differ because this site is a charity?

If we are to be asked to curb our views then we should know exactly why. If this is based solely in this forums personal code of conduct then thats fine but I want to know what actual laws cover these forums.

As an executive of this forum Matt I thought you would be the best person to ask.

Regards,
Hari

[John Smith]

I'm sure that Matt is indeed one of the best people to answer (or one of the legal people on the board?!!)

An interesting note is the international nature of the forum. I strongly suspect that since the owner of the forum is a UK charity, and the site is hosted in London then UK law applies. Whether a libellous posting is made from the UK or from outside, it is still libellous.

Whether any action could/would be taken against the poster is an interesting point, but AFAIK, case law would hold the KC group and it's trustees equally liable.

[Karl R]

As the site is hosted in England, and the registered address of the charity is also in England then jurisdiction would come under the Courts of England and Wales. This would mean that English law would apply.

The OP of a libellous comment would also be liable to prosecution as would be the owners of the site.the

[Matt Allgood]

Karl and John have outlined the legal position well.

I should point out that I am not asking people to 'curb their views', merely that they abide by the terms and conditions of Forum entry.

Perhaps the Forum is not a suitable vehicle for those who can not abide.

[Sajeev]

Definitely names should not be used, those posts was deleted and that is the end of that, and no one has a problem or an issue with that as it's the right thing to do. It was only two posts which was like this but a few more other posts which was peoples views was deleted under the guise of it being against the law, when they where clearly not. They was just views from KCers. It would be nice to be inclusive not exclusive.

Having said that Prof Lombadis was name was bashed not only here but also else-where, but it seems there was no "out cry" by those who keep going on about rules and regulations. So it should be fair for all, and seen to be, not for just for the few.

These posters in question, would I feel stand up in court happily, because they are not just typing out posts one after another for no reason, they are the ones at a loss, and in many ways a unconsolable and irretrievable loss where just some kindness was well over due.

This initial two postings is under the bridge from some time back with the offending posts deleted (which had names of places and Dr's), so there is not a problem, as it was dealt as soon as it was possible. And that is all that can be humanly done.

Things do spill over from time to time, especially for those new to postings and experiencing unique and new situations that only they know about. I for one would not have known about these stories from KCers other-wise.

[Matt Allgood]

Correct, personal names should never be used for the reasons previously discussed.

With regard to 'other' posts, I don't propose to dredge up the past on a public forum; however there is very good reason why we are required to delete posts that are political in nature. As a registered charity we can only pursue purposes that are legally charitable. Political, or partisan, purposes are not legally charitable and if our website was to become populated by such it is conceivable that the Charity Commission could shut the website down following a public complaint. That is why we request in our terms and conditions of entry that political views are not expressed.

I am encouraged to hear that posters may be prepared to stand up in court. If, in doing so, this involves squandering the charity's modest assets and the personal assets of its volunteer trustees it is not a course of action that would appear beneficial to anyone.

Regards

Matt

[Hari Navarro]

Hi Matt,
Thanks Karl and John for your input... but I still arent clear on this. Is there a specific law that covers internet slander? If I were to post messages here for example that directly commented on the practice of a specfic doctor could I be charged? I only ask this as I have been discussing this topic with members of another forum, they are in the process of finding legal representation to proscecute against an alledged case of slander.

I was under the impression that little to nothing could be done as these forums usually offer disclaimers that views expressed are not necessarily those of the forum owners... I assume that this site must have taken legal advise when it initially set up its charter. Are there international regulations that you can direct me to that explain what courses of action can be taken?

I totally agree with Sajeev that specific names should not be used when commenting about a certain treatment. But in saying this I strongly believe that we should not shy away from commenting on all aspects of the treatments themselves.

Thanks for your help,
Hari

[Karl R]

Is there a specific law that covers internet slander? If I were to post messages here for example that directly commented on the practice of a specfic doctor could I be charged?

It would be libel law that would cover posts made in this situation. The precedent was set in March 2006 in the High Court case of Keith-Smith v Williams.

A comment can be considered libellous where it can be seen to be defamatory or damaging to the individual/organization concerned. The onus would be on the poster to prove that this was not the case.

For example if I wrote that Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.

I was under the impression that little to nothing could be done as these forums usually offer disclaimers that views expressed are not necessarily those of the forum owners........ Are there international regulations that you can direct me to that explain what courses of action can be taken?

Thanks for your help,
Hari

The disclaimers would do little to mitigate the non action of the site owner or site ISP to remove the libellous comments made once they were notified. On the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences.

As far as I'm aware there are no international laws concerning libel, slander and defamation of character, however an aggrieved person could bring action against a poster, site owner and/or ISP in The Courts of England under English libel law as this site is both hosted in and run by an English organization