Can Owners of Internet Message Boards Legally Get Sued......

My wife's been involved with the legal profession (NOT as a Lawyer !) and I've heard tales of stuff you wouldn't believe. Because of those stories, I've thought about this subject several times, while reading various posts on HAMB. At the very least, Ryan should look into protecting himself, by displaying a disclaimer, something such as Ebay does, that they only provide a forum for Buyer & Seller to get together, but take no responsibility........ yadda yadda yadda.........

Anyone, non-HAMBer included, could read some suggestion for a modification in a thread here, go out and try it, but neglect some important step that was glossed over in the thread. If the update failed because the 'step' was omitted, causing injury, they could easily wind up sueing everybody in site (pun intended). There's a lot of people willing to sue over anything and a lot more vermin (i.e. Lawyers) willing to take it on. Remember, you can sue anybody for almost anything.......even if you're squeaky clean and are exonerated, it can still cost a fortune for a Lawyer to defend yourself.

Holy shit !! I hope I don't get sued for dispensing legal advice !!!!!!!!!


My 2¢

 

Rounding Roundtable

http://www.roddingroundtable.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=7e191bcfc6e63eb0ee1ae6895c712171

 

Wow, if I was going to guess about a company messing with HAMBers it would have been one in the rubber business more or less...

 

Denise,

I'm wondering if it doesn't fall into some sort of a gray area. We have a constitutional rite (for lack of a better term) commonly known as freedom of expression. Basically the rite to freely express our views. I'm think that perhaps slander would overide that but my understanding is that slander is not easy to win.

The problem is that we are international, some countries have laws against public forum of any kind. I doubt that they would be able to get any of us extradited but they might just send someone over here to blow us up.

There might be a problem if someone posted something that caused someone else serious bodily harm, but I'm not absolutly sure that Ryan would be responsable, I would hope it would be the poster.

All that said, I'm not an attorney, and anything that I say that I've either done or suggset that you try you do at your own risk.

 

I've seen the threads on Heidt's (and other products) here on the HAMB, and if they did, too, they made some changes, for the better.

That's what criticism is for... isn't it?
So the things that are wrong can be addressed and rectified...?
If it broke... it broke...
Fuck who's fault it is, let's get it fixed so it don't break no more...

... and what liability is there in giving advice and criticism...?
Nobody puts a gun to anyone's head around here. If I told you all to shoot yourself in the dick... and you DO... it's your fault... it's your dick.


Fuck the World... and you can use MY dick.


JOE

 

Did GOD HIMSELF send the C&D? Hahahaha
d

 

The irony of this whole thing, is that Greg Wapling who runs and set up that site along with many other comp related car stuff in this country; has done more to promote hot rods, customs, dry lakes racing etc through his computer expertise than any one I know. An this head of the ASRF (who hasn't held that position for very long), may never come close to achieving what Greg has!.
I am not familiar with the facts re the threatened law suet, as I am not a member of the site invovled! But I am one that will stand behind Greg 100 percent. Geoff aka Whodaky

 

The irony of this whole thing, is that Greg Wapling who runs and set up that site along with many other comp related car stuff in this country; has done more to promote hot rods, customs, dry lakes racing etc through his computer expertise than any one I know. An this head of the ASRF (who hasn't held that position for very long), may never come close to achieving what Greg has!.
I am not familiar with the facts re the threatened law suet, as I am not a member of the site invovled! But I am one that will stand behind Greg 100 percent. Geoff aka Whodaky

 

The way I see it, is when you post something here, it's irrefutable (sp) proof that you said it. That's how it can be used against someone. If it was just a bunch of guys at a car show talking and they said "those Fucking (insert name here) tires are piss poor" ... there's no way to prove it. When it's wrote down for God and everyone to see, well, it's harder to say you didn't do something.

I hate laws and lawyers, and our sue happy society.

jay

 

I'm Irish and if some one wants to sue me I'll be happy to go over and give him something to sue me for as soon as he has recovered. Pogo

 

Never do what lawyers ASK you to do in the name of avoiding their action against you.
Most is just bullshit bluffing and posturing.....they cant eat ya!
it also helps if you are broke and they have no incentive to pursue you........
The Homeless and bagladys are the safest!

 

Anyone can sue anybody, whether their complaint has merit or not you still have the expense of hiring a lawyer and defending yourself and the worry and sleepless nights.

 

You can send the "complainant" a message
http://www.asrf.org.au/contacts.html
But remember, please don't get too personal

 

Ryan has the HAMB Army to back his ass up...no worries here.

 

I'm a member of the ozzie forum, and the ASRF. After hearing about the law suit I re read the posts again and again trying to work out why. The only thing I could find was reference to this person by name, with nothing I thought would be considered a personal attack. But I am not that person, and he's not a rodder.

A lot of people will stand by Greg and the others who are included.

Cheers, Jimbob

 

Denise:

I practiced law for a few years (don't tell anyone...I wised up and now just waste my time working on projects that will never see the road again), in short, in America, it is VERY, VERY unlikely that the operator or the membership of a message board could be sued....and even if they are it is even more unlikely that they would lose.

The only way to sue would be to claim and prove either libel or slander... both of which are very difficult to prove.... In either case (and this is a simplified short answer) the plaintiff (i.e. the one suing) would have to prove that the person they are suing (the defendant) KNEW that what they said was false AND they would have to prove that they were damaged (i.e. lost money as a result).... Normally, it is very difficult to prove that the author knew what they were saying was untrue (even a reasonable belief that what the defendant was saying was true is normally enough to negate this facet of the test), however, even if that hurdle can be overcome, it is normally equally or more difficult to quantify the amount of monetary damage a person suffered as a result...

So in short, in the US it is typically a scare tactic used by lawyers to try to get someone to comply with what their client wants without actually filing legal papers. Usually a shot across the bow and not the first of a battle....

Tim

 

I too am a member of the Aussie forum and will support Greg 100%.
I have been through the posts again and can't for the life of me work out why he is being sued!?
Maybe something got out that wasn't supposed to? Who knows either way it is pretty f@%ked up.

 

Wow Denise, tough question, The short answer is "Maybe so…..it depends".

I guess I’m one of the few lawyers on the HAMB (or one of the few who’ll admit it ). That’s OK, I’ve got a thick skin. My family at least likes me…and some clients TOO.

FIRST, what follows is NOT legal advice. (I have to say that to cover my own butt.) SECOND, the law of libel and slander is different in different jurisdictions, and way complex…..it’s a specialty in the profession (and not my specialty). THIRDLY, what follows is only referring now to the law of Ontario, Canada, where I practise. The thing of it is, the ‘net (and the HAMB) is everywhere….and the law in each jurisdiction is scrambling to catch up with it in the 21st century. For all I know there’s already an international treaty or agreement on this.

Back to the question. First, spoken words may be "slander". Written words (think "HAMB") may be "libel" (that’s more serious). Either one is "Defamation" if the words would likely make people think less of a person (or business) or their product or service and they are false. If you say or write something about somebody that’s true, you’re safe, no matter how bad it is. If it isn’t factually true, you could be in big trouble. On the other hand, you can state an opinion about some one or something (they’re an asshole) and that’s likely "fair comment"….unless you say they’re an asshole because they rip off HAMB members, or because their product is unsafe and they know it etc. In which case, you’d better be able to show some truth. (Maybe in some jurisdictions, you only have to show an honest belief the statement was true.) Are you getting a feel for how complex this is?


Back to Ryan…..if you "publish" the words of some one else (print or repeat them) that are defamatory, you may be just as liable. The earlier suggestion of a disclaimer is a really good one. Might help out Ryan, with no downside to the HAMBers. I don’t have the text of one handy…..we’ve all seen them…"the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of"…..If you want me to try to put one together, maybe PM me.

Now I’ve got another further suggestion, that might really piss of some members. In my jurisdiction, the statute has the following section:


"Agreements for indemnity

15. An agreement for indemnifying any person against civil liability for libel is not unlawful. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 15."

In plain words, you can agree with someone that they’ll pay any costs you incur if you get sued for libel. You can bet a reporter would like one of those deals. More likely I’ll bet, a publisher demands this deal from the reporters. I don’t know.

Anyway, if I were acting for Ryan, and looking out only for him, I’d probably recommend that he include a term like that in the HAMB sign on process. Something like, "In exchange for the opportunity to post on this board, you agree to indemnify…..any cost or judgment…..arising out of claim against Ryan/HAMB based on any words posted by me,…… acceptance signified by my first and each subsequent post…."

I’ve never seen this done on any message board. Don’t know if it would hold up and be binding. I’ve got a fair idea this might have a WAY chilling effect on the HAMB. But lawyers are supposed to protect clients from worst case, which sometimes may be other people with hungry lawyers…..that’s just reality (and why a lot of people don’t like lawyers….). Here, I’m talking about an issue where Ryan’s interest in not getting his ass sued, and the HAMB members interest in saying whatever they feel like are in potential conflict.

Bottom line is……DO watch what you say a little, we’re not all REALLY just hanging out in the garage by the beer fridge. Mostly, I think we’re pretty good. But be careful when you want to rant on someone or some product. Remember, opinion is generally OK, but I wince sometimes when I see a post that really flames some person, product or business. If the statements aren’t true, there could be liability. (And that’s not necessarily unfair. None of us want some worldwide message saying we’re a crook or worse.) But the liability could spill onto Ryan too. And Ryan shouldn’t have to constantly check messages or delete just to protect his own ass (in the U.S. of A. for something posted by some one in East Borneo……..can you follow the money trail??) Not saying he does now….don’t know.

"Let’s be careful out there." -Keith

 

Slowlearner...


That looks OK, but shouldn't it be in 0.005 point sized font?

 

Hey-does Canada work under Napoleonic law like France?(Guilty 'til proven innocent).
Yeah, who knew the HAMB was actually a secret front for lawyers???

 

Hey Jeepers- the province of Quebec DOES have a civil code derived from the Napoleonic (like Louisiana). Every province in Canada has its own civil law (mostly from England). So far as I know, each of the U.S. states does too. I don't think libel law is Federal down your way, altho FCC etc may have changed that a bit. See, nothins simple. (Law's everywhere, think of radio waves...just going right through you, unfelt, unseen.)

About "guilty til proven..." we're not talking criminal law at all. I think the assumption is, if the statement wasn't false, you wouldn't sue the guy in the first place. The defendant had better hope he can prove it's true (or most of it...and the rest is "fair comment"). Of course, once in a while there's a guy like Oscar Wilde -sued his male lover's father for calling him "gay" - lost big time -went to jail -go figure. -Keith