I've been thinking this one through as a result of something someone else said to me - if someone posts libelous, defamatory statements about a public individual on a message forum, who is responsible for that? In IW's case, is it Ziroc for being the owner? Or the person that posted it? And how is this libel specifically proven?

Any lawyers out there who might be able to assist with this?

I seem to recall there was a lawsuit against AOL regarding libel that was lost because AOL asserted that since they don't audit for content, they can't be held responsible. What this seemed to mean is that once you start auditing the postings of your forum (like you guys do here) you CAN be held responsible for libelous postings, because by NOT removing them you're in a way endorseing them. This was a while back, there's probably been more legal exploration of these ideas since then.

I'm sure TL can add some legaleze...

the only way Z or any orum owner would be held Libel, is if they failed to delete it, and allowed it to stay up, if they take steps to prevent it from being seen, then if someone tries to sue him for it, he can prove it was the person who posted it, and that he took steps to solve the issue, otherwise, if it is allowed to stay up, then he is held accountable for it, does that make sense?

Yeah, unless Z pre-edits for content, I don't see how he'd be on the hook.

All issues can be changed by local statute dictating otherwise. That said....

Let's not forget the elements of libel:
False statement;
Reasonably believed by others;
that causes measurable HARM to the person libelled.

In addition, in the USA you have a HEIGHTENED requirement where famous people, public figures, and politicians are concerned: The statement must have been made with MALICE (i.e. intended to harm the individual or made with reckless indifference to foreseeable harm).

In other words, public figures are almost always s**t out of luck on libel claims. How do you think the Enquirer can go on existing???

Not positive on this one, but I had the impression Z is indemnified by the ToS we all signed to join on. Something to the effect that he is not responsible for what we post, but has the right to remove or edit if he chooses.

This is what it says in the ToS

<font color="white">Be Responsible: Do not post slanderous, libelous or any defamatory statements on the Ironworks Gaming Forum, we will not be held responsible for your posts, but just the same, we'd rather not go there! Posts that appear to be defamatory should have supporting references included.</font>

[ 07-21-2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

Most message boards (including mine) come built-in with some sort of indemnification notice that is automatically displayed on member registration that one must agree to to complete the registration process. This generally makes clear that the owner/administrator of the board shall not be held legally responsible for any comments posted by any member of his forum.

I bet it's just a matter of time before this gets tested, though. Someone is bound to get the hump at something someone posts at some place, and take some kind of legal action at some time for some reason.

That's my definitive prediction of the future ;)

It already has been tested. A school district in Syracuse, NY, was having an all-out brawl with parents on several issues. The parents took to the local radio station's message board and posted numerous anonymous baseless slanderous libelous things. The radio station began summarily deleting offensive posts. In the end the radio station got caught up by both parties -- parents claiming it was in league with the school board, the school board claiming it was a vehicle for libel.

Lawsuits were threatened -- don't know if the were filed. Point is, this is not uncommon.

As for the indemnification on TOS, it may have limitations. I'd point them out here, but I'll do Z and the others the favor of NOT being the Devil's Advocate this time. ;) If Z or mods are interested in any holes this language may have, they can feel free to pm or email me.

I think my point was that because the underlying libel claim actually is invalid, it obviates all of this discussion anyway.

This is cool, TL - I'd rather you not go into too much detail. Your answer gave me all I needed. :D

<font color="white">TL - Is the defence of "fair comment" applicable in a cause of action for libel/slander as in the case of a defamation suit?


</font color>

I'm not sure if I get your meaning here. I don't know what you mean by "fair comment."

In the US (but maybe not elsewhere) libel/slander and defamation of character are so close it's hard to distinguish them at all. In fact, IIRC libel/slander are just differnt flavors of the tort of defamation under common law. Don't quote me, I haven't had a defamation case and my knowledge goes back to the 2000 Bar Exam.