Whether or not a forum owner has been arrested is not really the point.

One should not take risks with another person's legal ramifications.

Especially when one has been explicitly asked not to.

That is how I see it, at least.

If you're in someone else's house and they ask you not to piss up the curtains it's courtesy and respect not to continue to piss up the curtains and leave their place stinking.

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Defamation

In a nutshell, defamation relates to the making of untrue derogatory public comments, which are damaging to an individual or organisation.

The two most common forms of defamation are held to be slander and libel, but a general accusation of defamation in itself is a serious matter.

In the USA, webmasters may be protected on the issue of publishing defamatory comments by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This means that the poster – not webmaster – may be legally responsible for the comments made.

However, in the UK, the law will hold the publisher liable as well. And unlike most English laws, an act of defamation is presumed to be false, unless it can be proven otherwise.
www.internetbusiness.co.uk/2005/12/23/le...ities-of-webmasters/

Blue_Tackler wrote: Hence the continual requests for claims to be substantiated with evidence/proof or they'll be deleted.

Never mind sued, hundreds of Internet sites which are much bigger than this have been closed down overnight. Massive purges happen all the time. Sometimes even against court rulings. Ultimately the authorities can and will do whatever they feel like. The fact that this is a small site probably makes this less likely, but it can easily happen, it happens all the time.

Our servers are in the US, majority of members are in the UK, 'webmaster' in Greece, which countries laws apply?

oioioi wrote:
It appears to be the country where the complainant is a resident if I have understood it correctly.

At issue in the Dow Jones v. Gutnick case is how publication is defined in cyberspace: Whether material is published when it is uploaded onto computer servers, or when it is downloaded by readers. The distinction is important because it helps determine which country or state's libel laws should apply tothe published material.

At the heart of this case is a libel suit filed in the Australian state of Victoria by prominent Melbourne businessman Joseph Gutnick, who claims he was defamed by a Barron's article linking him to a jailed money launderer. The article appeared in the American newspaper's print edition and on its Web site, which can be read by subscribers around the world.

The publisher, Dow Jones & Co. Inc., filed a motion to move the case from Melbourne to New Jersey, where its Web servers are located. When the motion was denied, Dow Jones appealed to Australia's High Court, which heard the case in late May.

ojr.org/ojr/law/1033079636.php

mikey mikey wrote:
Twas just a matter of curiosity tbh.
I fully agree with the established consensus.......... I don't really see much point in continuing the thread, it just seems to keep stirring stuff up or kind of festering now.
Thanks for the info BT.

Space Bandit wrote:
I was not really aiming my comment at anybody in particular, Certainly not you.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Nevermind what happens to oioioi, the site could be closed!

Space Bandit wrote:
I know that you're joking but I should point out for the benefit of the not-so-used-to-British-sarcasm that this is quite the opposite of reality

Should the unthinkable happen and the forum got closed ( ) presumably the back ups of the forum would be able for us to just create a new forum & leave tripledave to his fate?
So at least we'd be ok.

Nah, fuck him.

davedavedave wrote:
It could be viewed as taking one from the team.

psketti wrote:
of course I have read the thread, is my question not valid?

If no forum owner has ever been prosecuted for content posted on said forum, why the need for censorship?

No need to take my question so personal, surely it is a question that is valid for all forums and life in general? Does the threat of punishment stop us acting in ways we wish, also it makes it imperative that we know our rights.

atwood wrote:
Because certain people are watching this forum like hawks for the slightest chance they can get.
Subtle hint- DIF.

atwood wrote:

It is indeed.

However, my query to yourself was more in line of the questioning you had felt the need to pursue... ie, in regards to what friends should or shouldn't do on forums and my interest in yourself, was in why you wished to keep poking this particular line of query.

atwood wrote:
i can wholeheartedly agree with this question , it does curtail free spirit , if you let it make you feel threatened , but i would like to take the time to say that it doesn't happen like that on this forum , it certainly miles apart from across the street where they need donations to feed the cat called ego , you just get banned for any difference of opinion

as it has been said/discussed by many members that certain things are not wanted here for whatever reasons , it's not the direction that they as participants want it to go , which i feel needs to be respected .

look it hasn't been closed and people banned forever , so it goes to show

We ain't curtailing anything though... we merely decided not to have a seperate area of the foum dedicated to one subject, therefore we've decided not to make it a separate issue.

The subject can still be discussed.

psketti wrote:
i wasn't implying that anyone was , more the opposite

only an individual can feel fear , why change who you are incase someone doesn't like what you say



lol "only an individual can feal fear" sounded like merlicunt there love n light