Liability regarding posts

[rnmcd]

Printed press gets sued because they are often the publisher and author of the malicious comments.

[Freesteyelz]

Renewed post? Anyway...

The original question is not clear-cut as we'd like to think. It can go both ways but generally the ownership of the content is with the publisher (poster). In the case for the OP there are 2 clear IFs. Whether the venue (forum) is open to the general public and whether or not the forum owner approves content before allowing them for publication.

First, forum owners don't necessarily have the control over who enters and the content. It is one of the reasons why "Report Post" and banning options exists. Once the forum owner becomes aware of questionable content then he/she can be held liable along with the poster.

Another criterion is whether or not the forum's owner(s) approves the posts before allowing them for publication. Such with magazines, newspapers and books to name a few. The editor has control what goes out. If legal action is ever taken here both the author (of content) and publisher (editor) can be held liable.

There are other factors involved in these type of disputes such as malicious intentions, which has been mentioned a few times in this thread. I can't comment here since I don't know what was posted.

[Jose Amaral Rego]

Printed press gets sued because they are often the publisher and author of the malicious comments.

You should watch Oprah, as one teacher sued a site and not the student that post the comment. She did win, as the owner of the site controls what is display on site.

[slappy]

Usually, the potential liability of a Forum owner for the posts of others would be for failure to "retract" and/or "remove" libelious statements when notified by the person or organization alleging the material is "false and/or defamatory."

Here is one of many articles available on the web on this subject, which references actual case decisions in various jurisdictions:

http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_c...rds_forums.htm

This one also has a good discussion of the various legal concepts involved, including one called "Tortuous Interference," which involves the original posters question about someone posting comments about someone's business.

http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_l..._liability.htm

Try a google search using the following search criteria:

liability of forum for libelous statements of others

Regards,

[Freesteyelz]

You should watch Oprah, as one teacher sued a site and not the student that post the comment. She did win, as the owner of the site controls what is display on site.

In this case how old was the student?

[MRGTB]

The problem is though, even if it the content posted on your site is true: "can you actually prove it's true"?

If I was in your shoes, I would probably remove the content myself to be honest. Because if he decides to contact your server host and they agree and don't like whats posted on your site. Your risking them suspending your account.

And I would imagine that would be his next step if he gets nowhere with you. I agree with what "Vile" said, it's not really worth the hassle even if it is true. Your better off just removing it.

[Jose Amaral Rego]

In this case how old was the student?

High School and one was Professor... If you research who you want to sue, make sure that the site has some kind of liability insurance and if not, go for the person that place comment.

You can do so many things before taking to court, like get the host to remove it or face same consequences.

All this only can take place if all parties are in same Country or it will be very difficult to do anything other then asking your isp to block that site and or server.

[rnmcd]

You should watch Oprah, as one teacher sued a site and not the student that post the comment. She did win, as the owner of the site controls what is display on site.

Using that scenario, couldn't the host of the website (if different than the website owner) be sued for allowing the website to publish those messages? They have final say in what appears on the website.

[Jose Amaral Rego]

Yes, but it all depends on what 'Insurance' they carry. You can try suing someone without insurance and if they do not have a cent to their name, then what would be the point, as you will be waiting for the rest of your life and have to renew judgement until you can get a red cent.

You would first have to make sure you have a paper trail, between yourself and the person you want to ultimately want to be liable.

[rnmcd]

Yes, but it all depends on what 'Insurance' they carry. You can try suing someone without insurance and if they do not have a cent to their name, then what would be the point, as you will be waiting for the rest of your life and have to renew judgement until you can get a red cent.

The point would be to have them retract/remove a malicious statement. Not every lawsuit requires a monetary settlement.

[Freesteyelz]

Using that scenario, couldn't the host of the website (if different than the website owner) be sued for allowing the website to publish those messages? They have final say in what appears on the website.

Not necessarily since web hosts do not have ownership of the content. Unless the content violates their TOS, the law or they have been court ordered (and/or under review) web hosts are not held responsible.

[ACLineman]

Correct me if I'm wrong , but doesn't VB have wordage in the regisiteration process to relieve the VB license holder of any liabilty? If so where is it located?

I had a person who purchased a boat and not happy with the service manager and posted his first name as being a liar,,,etc plus the dealers name

[rnmcd]

There may be language to that effect but that doesn't seem to absolve the site owner from libel.

[ACLineman]

There may be language to that effect but that doesn't seem to absolve the site owner from libel.

Even this ?

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

[orillia]

Reducing the original post to legal details won't help our colleague. I have been on both sides of this fence; I was (until last June) a fishing lodge owner, and I have owned and staffed at several forums.

Here is the simplest solution: edit the original posts and add a note that says the establishment owner has complained about the posts and that you cannot verify either side of the story, and are therefore recusing your forum due to the potential liability. You could add a sentence recommending that ALL members contact the BBB if they are suspicious about the quality of a vendor's offerings. This serves two purposes: it eliminates the legal threat to you and still keeps a red flag over the suspect vendor.

And - to be fair to the B&B owner - I've had people complain about my lodge because they couldn't catch a fish, even though the client next door to them was bringing back full stringers every day. People always have the option to be malicious... the B&B owner would have been better off (rather than threatening you) to post a rebuttal in the thread. Your challenge is to decide if it's worth letting this rent space in your brain. You can't fix every problem that comes your way in a customer service environment, so you're best to use a diplomatic strategy and move forward. Unless, of course, you are anxious to give a lawyer your hard-earned money.