The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Reader comments bigger legal risk than forums

Adrian Boutel

Lawyers? 

Be interested to hear the legal theory here. What's _running a forum_ if not an invitation to comment?

Neil Barnes

Presumably this will be... 

Coat

modded before it's displayed?

Mine's the one with the self-censorship chip in the pocket.

Gilbert Wham

Goodbye, Internets... 

But, I, they... bheheheh.... That's unpossible! The interrnet's very raison d'etre is the posting of rambling, ill thought-out screeds by retards. What will we all *do*?

dervheid

Oh! Sues you sir! 

Coat

Looks like it could be open season for the legal fraternity then. Allegedly!

Must remember to be more careful when commenting.

Allegedly.

W***ers! (Allegedly)

Pockets being emptied by the lawyers (Allegedly)

Dave

This seems counter intuitive 

Stop

May I check if I have this correct?

A web site publisher who exercises no editorial control over the content of the site not written by him is likely to be less burdened by litigation than a (I posit) more responsible publisher who employs people to moderate contributions such as this one.

So Vulture Central will now be in a more sound position by not moderating this comment?

Bonkers

Christoph

Casual comments 

"[Bulletin board posts] are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out."

Would this change if the comment gets massively linked to or slashdotted?

Matt

Differeces and juristiction 

It doesn't help that comments can be viewed from around the world and that each country has it's own ideas of what's OK and what's not. Even worse with the US which thinks it's laws are pre-eminent.

On a practical point of view surly comments fall into the same category as the traditional newspaper letters section.

Christopher P. Martin

In that case... 

Paris Hilton

I heard that the staff of out-law.com torture squirrels with pointy sticks. I've also been told Reg hacks burn defenceless ants with magnifying glasses.

Does this count then (or will I be censored just in case)?

(PH is used to web-based legal issues...)

Anonymous Coward

True but 

Pirate

John Mackenzie still loves teh cock

Anonymous Coward

Idiots 

Everyone is an idiot. Sue us!

Signed,

Everyone at The Register.

Christoph

@ Dave 

Yes, it does actually make some sense. If you don't moderate, you have no control over what's said (and may not be able to for something like LiveJournal where there are far too many comments to screen them). It's an analogy with the phone system, where the phone company is not responsible for things said on the phone even though they transmit them.

But if you exercise *any* editorial control at all, you are deemed to have taken an active part in publishing the comments and are therefore held responsible for them. You have actively decided that that specific comment is to be published.

Stu Reeves

One word 

Dead Vulture

Jihad !

< followed by sound of el reg's doors being kicked in>

paul browne

ISP 

Did this mean that as soon as the ISP`s start filtering packets for P2P that they will be held responsiable for any traffic that they miss, as they have looked at the packet then allowed it to carry on?

Peter Timon

Lawyers 

Remember the old saying about what's the definition of 1000 lawyers laying drowned at the bottom of the Sea?

answer: a good start

(note the absence of a joke icon)

Mike Clark

The risk is not libel, it is contempt of court 

Alert

It seems to me that to invite reader comments on certain news stories is to risk breaching the strict court reporting rules about what can be said when. For example, when reporting a crime, you can pretty much speculate at will until somebody is charged, then you must be very careful until they have been tried. To allow readers to post "Glad they've got that toerag locked up, he's obviously guilty, I know him and he's been in trouble for the same thing before" at the bottom of your article would not be clever and could possibly get the case thrown out on the basis that it is no longer possible for the suspect to get a fair trial.

Anonymous Coward

Ridiculous 

Pirate

Surely this is nothing but anthrax Iran nuclear device twin towers kill the president pedophile North Korea dirty bomb pure scaremongering?

Anonymous Coward

So can I still say this? 

Flame

Fact 1) The CTO at Phorm is a nice bloke called Stratis Scleparis

http://www.phorm.com/about/exec_scleparis.php

Fact 2) Before he was at Phorm, Stratis was CTO at BT Retail, where his responsibilities must surely have included authorising (and then authorising denial of) the secret and quite possibly illegal BT/Phorm internet interception trials

Fact 3) BT have an ethics policy which covers employees going to work for suppliers etc. A prize to anyone who can find evidence it's ever been used.

Anonymous Coward

How to post a comment on YouTube 

Joke

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local_idiot_to_post_comment_on

Dave

@ Mike Clark 

Black Helicopters

I've certainly noticed that even people like the Daily Mail make damn sure that comments are turned off if the case is sub judice, as Judge hauls editor into the dock for contempt does not make the best of stories for the editor concerned, even if the rest of the papers enjoy reporting that.

Anonymous Coward

Stop acting like children... 

.... you make me realise that everyone in existence, past, present and future, is an arsehole.

I would LOVE to not have had to anonymous coward this, but unfortunately I found out that if you google my name my register comments appear pretty early on and I don't really want someone randomly googling me, reading that comment, and thinking I'm serious because they haven't bothered clicking through to the link.

Ashley Pomeroy

"uninhibited, casual, and ill thought out" 

Paris Hilton

Now that would be a good slogan for a website. It ranks up there with "truculent, devious, and unreliable".

Skinny

So does this mean 

That the Moderatrix has not only the responsibility of ensuring only the cream of the comment crop get published (which has to make you wonder what the quality of the ones that don't get passed her are like)

But she also has the responsibilty of ensuring El Reg doesn't get sued back into the stone ages? Now that's quite some whip she's wielding over her employers!

Sarah Bee

Re: So does this mean 

(Written by Reg staff)

What it means is that I'll have a fine white head of hair by Christmas. And finely-ground teeth.

Dave

surely the point is (@ Christoph) @ Skinny 

all Moderatrices will now be summarily sacked as any miniscule drop-off in their performance will be too great a risk for the site owner to mitigate?

Anonymous Coward

@ Ashley Pomeroy et al 

"uninhibited, casual, and ill thought out"

Huh? I don't recall publishing my CV!

J

"Tempero, a moderation firm" 

Huh!? Now I can say I've seen it all... Moderation firm. I wonder how long it will take for them to start outsourcing this too. Or have they already? Are they gonna kill my comment!?

@Sarah Bee

Don't worry, I believe you will still look cute in white hair. Not so sure about the teeth though...

Anonymous Coward

@@Lawyers? 

Adrian Boutel, Well "running a forum" in the minds of a Labour Govt is using it as a megaphone but crushing any comments it does not like to hear. Yes Labour speak with forked tongues.

Frumious Bandersnatch

how long before ... 

Paris Hilton

el Reg has to add a "choose a disclaimer" box below the icon selection box?

This post is illogical, ill-thought out and not representative of valid opinion anywhere.

Law

I wonder... 

Dead Vulture

how many comments have been blocked as people decide to see how far they can push el-reg.

Dead vulture - because I know phorm are in the process of generating some sick comments and getting ready calling their solicitors! One less annoying group of semi-intelligent people to ask inconvenient questions on tha interweb!

RW

Dear Sarah Bee 

Joke

Get those teeth sharpened to points instead of grinding them.

BTW, I know a rogue dentist who can install hollow canines with poison sacs so you can bite people and poison them. A variety of venoms are available including one which causes the bones and cartilage to dissolve, but the one I like is the one that makes the bitee turn purple and swell up like a balloon.

Ross

Ppl believe what they read on t'internet?! 

As I recall, both defamation and slander require that you (the person being defamed or slandered) go down in the estimation of more than one person as a result of what somebody else wrote/said. If you can find two ppl that believe what they read on an internet forum about someone then you should probably ask to move to another asylum.

Duncan

Re: I wonder... 

Thumb Up

"how many comments have been blocked as people decide to see how far they can push el-reg."

I'd be quite interested to see some graphs and stats! Bet they have some cracking comments stuck up on the wall in the El Reg office they couldn't publish! :)

Mark

re: Differeces and juristiction 

So the law the page must obey is the one in the URL.

.uk? UK law.

.us? US law.

etc.

Anonymous Coward

Allegedly : I have a cunning plan 

Allegedly: Just a bit of reg exp.

Allegedly: A quick browser plugin, to remove it again, at the behest of the viewer.

Allegedly: Version 1 Out Now.

Allegedly: sed -i 's/^/Allegedly: / /' comment

Allegedly: then pop into address bar of browser

Allegedly: JavaScript:p=document.getElementsByTagName('p');for(k=0;k<p.length;++k){f=p[k].firstChild;t=f.nodeValue;if(t){t=t.replace(/Allegedly/g,'');void(f.nodeValue=t);}}

Allegedly: Or if you are web maestro (better than master yes?) add it in button form

Allegedly: Available for Weddings, Bar & Bat Mitzvahs, also Discos as well.

Anonymous Coward

@ Allgedely: I have a cunning plan - Correction 

Allegedly: sed -i 's/^/Allegedly: / /' comment

Allegedly to:

Allegedly: sed -i 's/^/Allegedly: /' comment