BT phorm Trial results Leaked - *** Thread removed ***

[schmunk]

Well thanks for the concise explanation as to why it's been removed.

Saracen, concise? What have they done to him?

[Lee H]

Saracen, concise? What have they done to him?

LOL the triffids are here now it's summer

[Lucio]

Saracen, concise? What have they done to him?

Musta been that one time I agreed with him that broke him, the concept of him and I agreeing on a topic when I'm always wrong melted his logic circuits

[j.o.s.h.1408]

i dont have a clue what this is about lol

[Raz316]

Out of interest Hexus, have you ever been approached by anyone to remove content in the past?

And to anyone else, know of any examples of a forum being shutdown for discussing something it shouldn't have been?

(both meant as genuine questions)

[Saracen]

IANAL but I don't believe there is any such legislation stating that publishers are accountable by law - though there are plenty of groups who would like there to be so of course! Hence why we read so many cases of companies miss using copyright and/or IP law to have sites remove negative reviews about them etc... Feeding the so called Streisand effect. The paragraph “The views represented by respondents represent ... etc" is quite commonplace.

Yes, you do see that kind of disclaimer a fair bit, but it's designed to show that articles by independent people don't necessarily represent the editorial view of a publication. It doesn't give you any legal cover at all to break laws.

And you'd be wrong about there not being any legislation making publishers accountable. There's a whole series of laws. For a start, there's libel (defamation) laws. If ANYONE (with certain very limited exceptions, like Parliamentary proceedings) says something about another identifiable legal person and that leads to that person's reputation being damaged and them suffering loss as a result, you can be sued. I haven't explained that very accurately, but you get the gist. So if you were to say that someone is a liar, cheat, thief and paedophile, they may, for instance, lose their job. And you are liable to be sued.

There's a LOT more to defamation that that, but that's the principle.

Then, there are certain things in Copyright law that are criminal offences, such as publishing procedures for bypassing copy protection technology. And there are things that, if done by a private individual, are civil breaches of copyright but when that same thing is done in the course of a business (and most publishers are publishing for a business) it becomes a criminal offence.

Then there's incitement of various types. If you published leaflets trying to incite, for instance, racial attacks, you'd be committing an offence.

And so on. There are whole books about how the law impacts on publishers and what you can and can't do.

And one more thing. It is a clearly established precedent that when you "publish" something, it involves one or more other individuals seeing, reading or hearing that item, and the act of publishing occurs where that person receives the publication. So .... a website being read in 50 countries is being "published" in 50 countries. So, if you're falling foul of, for example, defamation laws, you could well find yourself being pursued in the courts of any and all of those countries. The tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds I referred to in costs earlier, was referring to one case in the UK. Now imagine fighting that same battle in a dozen or more countries.

IANAL either, and as far as I know, neither are any of the HEXUS staff. We don't want to be, either. Nor do they want to spend half their time sitting in lawyers offices discussing defamation cases. They'd rather be doing what HEXUS is supposed to be doing.


What it boils down to, noTHINGface, is that we will choose our battles. But it's one thing being prepared to take a stand over an article written by our staff and published, where we've had a chance to do the research, check the facts and review the material before going public with it. ANY self-respecting publisher does that as a matter of course with contentious material. It's entirely another matter to risk legal action over comments made by a member in a forum.

So, while we give as broad a latitude as we can in letting people say pretty much what they want, there are times when we have to look at it and be sure that we stay within what the law permits.

And bear in mind, BT can afford some pretty impressive lawyers. If YOU say something and were to get a letter from their lawyers informing you that if you didn't apologise and retract, they were going to sue you, what would you do? Risk your home over it? Because if they do take you to court, it'll probably cost you tens of thousands in legal fees even if you win, and no guarantee you'll get your costs awarded. If you lose, you could end up paying their costs too.

Publishers HAVE to act responsibly and within the law, and most certainly can be held to account for what they publish. Ask Demon Internet about Doctor Godfrey. That, allegedly, cost them about £3/4 million in costs and damages, over what someone else said in a newsgroup they mirrored.

[Stringent]

Thanks for the clarification Saracen though, you didn't have to but I am glad you did.

[Saracen]

Out of interest Hexus, have you ever been approached by anyone to remove content in the past?

And to anyone else, know of any examples of a forum being shutdown for discussing something it shouldn't have been?

(both meant as genuine questions)

I can't, and/or won't, answer that in relation to Hexus. Maybe DR will comment.

But I personally have.

A company ....erm ... wasn't very happy with what I'd said in a review of their product. They contacted the publisher (a major UK computer mag publisher) and threatened legal action. I got a call from the editor, told me what had happened and asked if I was sure of what I'd said. I told him I absolutely was, and had notes, log files and records to prove it. We discussed it in some detail. He said fine, and told the company they stood by the review, so see you in court. And that was the last I heard of that.

[Saracen]

Thanks for the clarification Saracen though, you didn't have to but I am glad you did.

Don't have to, maybe, but we like our members to understand why we do things, and that it isn't just capricious. It is, after all, a community, and I am, of course, a member too. I don't work for Hexus. I'm just a volunteer on the forums.

[usxhe190]

Out of interest Hexus, have you ever been approached by anyone to remove content in the past?

And to anyone else, know of any examples of a forum being shutdown for discussing something it shouldn't have been?

(both meant as genuine questions)

Yes on your second question.

[G4Z]

In a slightly similar vein one of my mates told me last week that on one of the forums he posts on (a VW forum) there was some discussion about a Mosque being built in a certain area of London. One of the members made a comment that he thought it was stupid to allow it in that area as it would likely be attacked (firebombed) by the local lunatics. Now, I read this post and in no way was it threatning, it was pure commentary, anyway the police somehow got wind of that post and actually arrested him under hate speech laws. Its a pretty extreme example but it CAN happen, so be careful what you post.

[JimmyBoy]

i seem to remember another certain uk computer based online shop not being happy with the retailers bit in the hexus.trust section hehehe

wonder who that could be

[DR]

i seem to remember another certain uk computer based online shop not being happy with the retailers bit in the hexus.trust section hehehe

wonder who that could be

This simply isn't true - No company has ever contacted us over HEXUS.trust - infact the only time we do get a reach out is people chasing us to be added to it.

We have removed companies in the past because we simply do not wish to be associated with them or their business activities.

However - your post is a classic example of the difference between fact and assumption/rumor - something which, if you named the company you are thinking of - could potentially get yourself in hot water

David


P.S. Don't ask or guess more - I will simply remove your posts.

[Saracen]

...

However - your post is a classic example of the difference between fact and assumption/rumor - something which, if you named the company you are thinking of - could potentially get yourself in hot water ....

And just to expand on that point a touch, you don't even have to name someone (or some company) to defame them. You just need to identify them. So if you say enough that the person reading the comments can identify that person, it's still actionable.

A rather obvious example .... If I say something defamatory and say I'm talking about an ex-President oft he USA, with a US senator wife who's been campaigning for the democratic nomination recently, and hoped to become the first woman President, I hardly need to name her. Or if I said .... "a British Prime Minister for 10 years, a major figure in the New Labour movement, and in power when the UK took military action in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein" it' pretty clear too. Or perhaps simply "the Prime Minister" in a context that was clearly referring to the current one, there's no doubt about who I meant.

Obviously, those are exaggerated examples, but the principle is that if the person is identified, they can be defamed even if not named. And a lot of people on here would probably at least make an assumption about who "another certain uk computer based online shop" was referring to.

[Andy3536]

And just to expand on that point a touch, you don't even have to name someone (or some company) to defame them. You just need to identify them. So if you say enough that the person reading the comments can identify that person, it's still actionable.

A rather obvious example .... If I say something defamatory and say I'm talking about an ex-President oft he USA, with a US senator wife who's been campaigning for the democratic nomination recently, and hoped to become the first woman President, I hardly need to name her. Or if I said .... "a British Prime Minister for 10 years, a major figure in the New Labour movement, and in power when the UK took military action in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein" it' pretty clear too. Or perhaps simply "the Prime Minister" in a context that was clearly referring to the current one, there's no doubt about who I meant.

Obviously, those are exaggerated examples, but the principle is that if the person is identified, they can be defamed even if not named. And a lot of people on here would probably at least make an assumption about who "another certain uk computer based online shop" was referring to.

I must be missing somthing here, the story is all over the internet, and BT themsevles have said that the leaked papers are genuine. So, what am i missing?

[Raz316]

I don't think it's discussing the fact the papers have leaked that's the potential issue. More the accusations that could potentially go with it. (So not a case of what has been said, but Hexus weighing up what could be said).