Legal reasons for having a thread deleted?

DonDaddyD

What legal reasons are there for having a thread deleted?

Serious question I'm asking and yes it does relate to a recent thread being deleted under the premise of 'legal reaons'. I'm not saying those reasons aren't valid.

Reporting in a newspaper, people reading and then discussing publicly with varying degrees of public exposure. What is the difference with that compared to people doing so on a public online forum?

Of course if someone was an eye witness called to give evidence then they may not be able to discuss the case until after the trail, I suspect. But does that extend to casual observers and general members of the public like us?

hatbeard

Did the mouse threaten to sue for defamation of character?

asprilla

Generally slander, defamation or something which may influence a trial.

You'll notice that for on-going trials most newspapers will actually turn their comment systems off for related articles.

I believe that the system owner rather than the commenter is also held responsible for any issues, hence their preference to play it safe rather than sorry.

DonDaddyD

Just to clarify, I'm asking as a point of curiousity.

We make threads on collisions, whether they involve us, if we saw the actual collision or just rode past during the aftermath. Sometimes we make a follow up thread citing the outcome, usually to bring some closure to the whole thing. Is doing so invoking some legal reasoning? Should we stop posting these?

I ask because

Earlier this year I saw a woman fatally hit by a bus. I posted it here and was contacted by the police to make a statement. They found me due to the thread I made on here. Everything I wrote here I believe to be exactly the same as what I said in my statement. So if contacted to give evidence that is what I would be saying. Should I have not done this?

DonDaddyD

hatbeard wrote:

Did the mouse threaten to sue for defamation of character?

Nah the mouse was like

"A spring loaded trap may break my neck
But names will never hurt me"

Generally slander, defamation or something which may influence a trial.

You'll notice that for on-going trials most newspapers will actually turn their comment systems off for related articles.

I believe that the system owner rather than the commenter is also held responsible for any issues, hence their preference to play it safe rather than sorry.

Agree that if there is an overwhelming amount of public outrage this may influence the judges decision on sentencing, this being why some cases withold idenitity - paedo cases for example.

But I can think of a number of trials where its not a requirement to withold the persons idenitity or stop the press from reporting on the trial in its entirity.

ooermissus

DonDaddyD wrote:

Just to clarify, I'm asking as a point of curiousity.

We make threads on collisions, whether they involve us, if we saw the actual collision or just rode past during the aftermath. Sometimes we make a follow up thread citing the outcome, usually to bring some closure to the whole thing. Is doing so invoking some legal reasoning? Should we stop posting these?

IANAL but if it's a contempt of court issue, then contempt is only possible once legal proceedings are under way - someone is arrested, or a warrant is out for their arrest, or is charged - so anyone can say anything they like in the aftermath of an accident, or once a case is finished. It's the period in between that is a grey and contentious area.

Personally, I think it's stupid to try and apply the same rules to a chat forum as are applied to newspapers and broadcast media (but then I am also part of a misguided minority that believes stricter rules are needed for people driving large lumps of metal at high speeds than for those cycling small lumps of metal at (generally) slower speeds).

mybreakfastconsisted

ooermissus wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Just to clarify, I'm asking as a point of curiousity.

We make threads on collisions, whether they involve us, if we saw the actual collision or just rode past during the aftermath. Sometimes we make a follow up thread citing the outcome, usually to bring some closure to the whole thing. Is doing so invoking some legal reasoning? Should we stop posting these?

IANAL but if it's a contempt of court issue, then contempt is only possible once legal proceedings are under way - someone is arrested, or a warrant is out for their arrest, or is charged - so anyone can say anything they like in the aftermath of an accident, or once a case is finished. It's the period in between that is a grey and contentious area.

Personally, I think it's stupid to try and apply the same rules to a chat forum as are applied to newspapers and broadcast media (but then I am also part of a misguided minority that believes stricter rules are needed for people driving large lumps of metal at high speeds than for those cycling small lumps of metal at (generally) slower speeds).

The ability to post comments is not present in the online Evening Standard story about a recent fatality in London.

spen666

Asprilla wrote:

Generally slander, defamation or something which may influence a trial.

You'll notice that for on-going trials most newspapers will actually turn their comment systems off for related articles.

I believe that the system owner rather than the commenter is also held responsible for any issues, hence their preference to play it safe rather than sorry.

The person posting the comments as well as the site owner/ administrator can be held liable. The owner/ administrator needs to have notice of the existence of the posts ( certainly in libel cases- not sure re contempt of court)

DDD - threads can be deleted here at the whims of the administrator/ owner with no need for any reason at all. So if you were an administrator, you could simply delete every post by a particular person at your whim.

Re your comment re the accident. - The comments were:
1. So remote from any trial timewise
2. did not identify the specific accident/ suspect etc


that they would be unlikely to influence the tribunal trying a case. In a recent thread quoted on here, the post on LFGSS forum at time of incident was probably in a similar position re number 1.

however when it was repeated on here at time of trial, Number 1 no longer existed

downwardslide

Do you remember the Lee Bowyer/Johnathan Woodgate trial a few years back?
The original trial was declared a miss trialafter the publication of an interview with the victims father in the sunday mirror. The judge asked the jury if any of them had seen the interview. A number of them had and as the judge considered the article to be prejudicial to the chances of a fair trial, he ordered a retrial. The paper (or it may have been the editor specifically) was held in contempt of court as a result and picked up a hefty fine.

jamescw

Spen666 has got it spot on. In theory, we can be held legally responsible for anything published anywhere on the site.

Forum comments are a bit of a murky area at the moment but until UK law is changed to specifically exclude them, our policy is to play it safe and delete any potentially defamatory comments, or any that could lead to us being judged in contempt of court, as soon as they are brought to our attention.

The thread I took down earlier today included details and speculation about an ongoing jury trial. Under UK law, the only information we're allowed to publish while legal proceedings are underway is a few basic details and anything revealed in (open) court.

DonDaddyD

jamescw@BikeRadar wrote:

Spen666 has got it spot on. In theory, we can be held legally responsible for anything published anywhere on the site.

Forum comments are a bit of a murky area at the moment but until UK law is changed to specifically exclude them, our policy is to play it safe and delete any potentially defamatory comments, or any that could lead to us being judged in contempt of court, as soon as they are brought to our attention.

The thread I took down earlier today included details and speculation about an ongoing jury trial. Under UK law, the only information we're allowed to publish while legal proceedings are underway is a few basic details and anything revealed in (open) court.

Phew... I thought I was in for a banning! 'Operations Editor' no less, can I have an autograph?

But thank you.

While you're about, and assuming you have website metrics could you tell me how much more activity and website traffic you get from a DDD thread than when isn't one? If it is a marked difference can I be paid/have a job/be made moderator/Interview in cycling plus....

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

.....be made moderator?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clever Pun

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The ability to post comments is not present in the online Evening Standard story about a recent fatality in London.

possibly because people will try and post their own propaganda and be dismissive of the person who has passed away.

hatbeard

Clever Pun wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The ability to post comments is not present in the online Evening Standard story about a recent fatality in London.

possibly because people will try and post their own propaganda and be dismissive of the person who has passed away.

I thought they only covered old fatalaties in paris.

Kieran_Burns

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

.....be made moderator?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

when you FIND a paid Moderator, let me know and I'll have a word with IB... the gits.

Kieran_Burns

jamescw@BikeRadar wrote:

Forum comments are a bit of a murky area at the moment but until UK law is changed to specifically exclude them, our policy is to play it safe and delete any potentially defamatory comments, or any that could lead to us being judged in contempt of court, as soon as they are brought to our attention.

You've just shut down Commuting Chat :shock:

whyamihere

Kieran_Burns wrote:

jamescw@BikeRadar wrote:

Forum comments are a bit of a murky area at the moment but until UK law is changed to specifically exclude them, our policy is to play it safe and delete any potentially defamatory comments, or any that could lead to us being judged in contempt of court, as soon as they are brought to our attention.

You've just shut down Commuting Chat :shock:

What, and only have one 'general' commuting area and the Workshop? Utter madness.

ooermissus

jamescw@BikeRadar wrote:

The thread I took down earlier today included details and speculation about an ongoing jury trial. Under UK law, the only information we're allowed to publish while legal proceedings are underway is a few basic details and anything revealed in (open) court.

I completely understand why you'd want to play it safe, but my personal - and possibly ill informed - opinion is that it is very unlikely that a forum thread could ever cross the threshold of creating "a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced."

So I think there's a distinction to be made between libel (very dangerous for a forum publisher) and contempt of court (I think less so)...

spen666

ooermissus - the comments in the relevant thread on here could have IMHO amounted to contempt. It was not unrealistic to imagine a juror coming across the thread when (improperly) searching online for details about this case.

Sadly, too many peopleare unable to confine themselves to "facts" and stray off into conjecture masked as fact. Some members of this board more so than others.

mybreakfastconsisted

Clever Pun wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The ability to post comments is not present in the online Evening Standard story about a recent fatality in London.

possibly because people will try and post their own propaganda and be dismissive of the person who has passed away.

They allow plenty of that post-trial, some of the comments on there are pretty disgusting, there's a chap who boasts of assaulting cyclists.

bobinski

ooermissus wrote:

jamescw@BikeRadar wrote:

The thread I took down earlier today included details and speculation about an ongoing jury trial. Under UK law, the only information we're allowed to publish while legal proceedings are underway is a few basic details and anything revealed in (open) court.

I completely understand why you'd want to play it safe, but my personal - and possibly ill informed - opinion is that it is very unlikely that a forum thread could ever cross the threshold of creating "a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced."

So I think there's a distinction to be made between libel (very dangerous for a forum publisher) and contempt of court (I think less so)...

I tend to agree.
I discussed it with colleagues at the solicitors practice where i work and the overwhelming consensus was that the threshold was not crossed.
I do understand though why the owners of this site have to be careful.

spen666

bobinski wrote:

....

I tend to agree.
I discussed it with colleagues at the solicitors practice where i work and the overwhelming consensus was that the threshold was not crossed.
I do understand though why the owners of this site have to be careful.

I agree in principle, but problem for websites/ all media is it is no good saying "we thought the threshold had not been crossed" if a court decides it has.

All media need to be cautious aaround this. The issue is not helped by some people on here and elsewhere who ignore warnings and seemingly deliberately try to post remarks that could easily be construed to be contempt of court.