I have a UBB Forum on my site.In the last two months we have had a problem with a troll.We narrowed it down to aOne Nickname and a UK based IP.
Now I am getting e-mails from this persons supposed lawyer/solicitor saying They are gonna sue me etc......
We do have the generic disclaimer on our forums when you regsiter.They are saying they will contact our hosts and shut us down.
All the lawyer/solicitor emails are from a web based e-mail in the Uk so Im not horribly worried
What Im curious to is would you shut down a site hosted with you just from a couple of well written emails or legal jargon?

Oh and BTW all the posts they have cited on our forums NONE contained his actual name and only 1 contained his nickname

As you can imagine, we get a few fiesty members here. Ban troll, wait for those legal papers that will never come.

Originally posted by York1
Now I am getting e-mails from this persons supposed lawyer/solicitor saying They are gonna sue me etc......
We do have the generic disclaimer on our forums when you regsiter.They are saying they will contact our hosts and shut us down.Not really clear what they are saying they'd sue you for. For banning a user?

I can't imagine any host would shut down a site for that. Keep a record of every communication you have with them, though, because it may be presented to your host as being completely different from what it really is.

As for the legal threats, it's pretty common to threaten a lawsuit with "virtual lawyers" whether there really is any grounds to do so or not. Are you sure it really is a lawyer who's emailing you? Real legal communication isn't normally done via email. If you get a letter on a law firm's stationary, then start taking it seriously.

Well they are going to sue for slander supposedly.Because their client's Nick name was refered to as the troll who was stealing passwords etc....
Im not worried about the legal part as I know even if the papers do come I can push em off till im 95;)
Im worried that my host will drop me
As much as i hate my host Id rather switch in my own good time.Im also afraid that even if I switch hosts they will simply do the same things again in an attempt to get the host to drop me

As a host, I'd prefer to get a piece of email from you with some details about what's going on so that if anything does arise, I'd know about it first. One of our clients had the exact same issue, and contacted us prior to setting up an account to explain what was going on and find out what action we would take against his site with regard to a harasser (zip, without legal intervention). This works a lot better if you have a good relationship with your host, of course, but it's often best to take the offensive, in case your personal troll starts getting out of hand.

Thats good to hear;) The host Im with now even if I get ahold of someone Via Phone its useless I still have 3 outstanding support tickets from 3 months ago LOL
I really dont mind switching hosts(Big shocker)I just want to be left alone so i can run my site the way its been for the last 6 months;)

I dont think you have anything to worry about. There are people who just want to raise hell, and think everyone is out to get them, and theres a name for people like that. Just ignore him.

Originally posted by Chicken
As you can imagine, we get a few fiesty members here. Ban troll, wait for those legal papers that will never come.

I run a board for a baseball team and sports boards tend to be troll havens. I have banned dozens of trolls in the last year and a half. Some complain and threaten, but nothing ever happens. It's not like there is a constitutional guarantee that allows trolling of private web sites.

Pay GOOD attention when you setup a policy
Users can always refer to the 1st amendment if you were not specific enough...

Originally posted by York1
I have a UBB Forum on my site.In the last two months we have had a problem with a troll.We narrowed it down to aOne Nickname and a UK based IP.
Now I am getting e-mails from this persons supposed lawyer/solicitor saying They are gonna sue me etc.....

There are many ways to troll and it seems that your banned user is just trying another method, only this he's trolling you directly.

You've risen to the bait, but don't let him set the hook in you. If you get postal mail from a lawyer/solicitor, then its seriously, but email from ImaLawyer@hotmail.com isn't something to take seriously. Just keep copies in case you decide to sue the user for harassment, impersonating a lawyer, or malicious trolling.

You can also bounce the emails to the postmaster and let them know that you are being harassed.

Originally posted by Eagle
Pay GOOD attention when you setup a policy
Users can always refer to the 1st amendment if you were not specific enough...
That would be a sure sign that they didn' know what they are talking about. None of these things are first amendment matters.

Heh, quite true Duster (I know you loved that one). I've seen a reference to that recently in an email sent to the moderators, ahem, and in case there is any doubt that Duster speaks the truth or any further confusion...

Just try to interrupt the broadcast of the next SuperBowl with your message and then sue the station for violating your 1st Amendment rights when they cut your donkey off (quicker than you can say, "We now pause for this commercial messa...").

Another thing to keep in mind with such matters is that the 'pursuant' (the person who whinges they'll sue for slander/libel/whatever) is the one who has to pay the initial costs - usually running into 5 or 6 figures.

Unless you were a rich individual, a company or a person who had a generous lawyer who waived all his fees, of course :D

Originally posted by York1
Well they are going to sue for slander supposedly.Because their client's Nick name was refered to as the troll who was stealing passwords etc.... Having a fair amount of knowledge about civil law, I couldn't resist this. The "troll" in question has no basis for a lawsuit, and he's obviously faking the lawyer thing.

First of all, slander refers to spoken words, not written text. He probably meant 'libel', which is the written form of slander (but any lawyer would have known this).

Secondly, in order to win a libel lawsuit, he would have to prove that you maliciously and substantially damaged his reputation in his community and that he suffered damages as a result. One big problem - nobody knows who he is, so his reputation in his community couldn't be damaged. And I'd love to see him try to claim your message board as "his community". The judge would laugh him out of court. Oh, I almost forgot - he also has to prove that your allegations about him stealing passwords are unfounded.

Believe me, he's just a goof off. No lawyer would even waste his time with this twirp's case. Sorry I can't advise you on the hosting question, but it looks like you already got some good answers.

I was just about to post that seeing the word slander is another clue that they don't know what they are talking about when I saw Epsilon's post.

Anti-spammers have a term for those who pretend to be attorneys. It's cartooneys. I'll leave it to your imaginations to determine why. It's easy and can be done bc (that's before coffee or before caffein, not BC the moderator).

Hahaha. I do not know if I am allowed to laugh. But, please allow me.

In my opinion, you have all the right to ban users in your forum. You own it. If they troll, they are in one way "tresspassing". You have the responsibility to discipline users.

I used to moderate a chat channel (mIRC) and ban users for some reasons. No questions.


:)

Originally posted by Duster

That would be a sure sign that they didn' know what they are talking about. None of these things are first amendment matters.

For the edification of others, IIRC the 1st amendment starts "Congress shall pass no law..." -- whatever the exact wording, the 1st amendment only restricts what the government can do and not what private citizens can do.

And as for slander... the rules in the UK are a bit sticky (the defendant must prove his statements were true, in contrast to most of the rest of the world where the plaintiff must prove that they were false), but as long as you're not in the UK you can just laugh at them. Even in the age of the internet the UK isn't dumb enough to try to pass extraterritorial laws.

Originally posted by Duster

That would be a sure sign that they didn' know what they are talking about. None of these things are first amendment matters.

Graduated the best in international law on one of Europe's finest universities, specialized in internet and law.

I think I know what I'm talking about here... Been there, done that....

Sorry to brag...
But policies are always VERY tricky!

Originally posted by Eagle
I think I know what I'm talking about here...

I don't mean this as a flame, so please don't take it that way, but I highly question this statement. The 1st Amendment does not guarantee your right to say whatever you want, whenever you want to, anywhere you please.

It does not entitle one to post trolling remarks on a message board, nor post affiliate links or spam the forum with their site URL. The 1st Amendment does not afford you the right to do this.

Originally posted by Eagle

Graduated the best in international law on one of Europe's finest universities, specialized in internet and law.

I think I know what I'm talking about here... Been there, done that....
The First Amendment, you must then know, has absolutely no relevance in international law.

Have you read it? The Amendment says that Congress can't pass a law that restricts speech. That is, it only affords protections againts restrictions on speech that are placed by the government. It has nothing to do with what restrictions the operators of a private forum can place.

I certainly agree with you. The first amendment (freedom of expression?) does not necessarily suggest that you can say anything with freedom. Remember, freedom always comes with responsibility. If what the person is about to say will not be acceptable let him say it that is his opinion! But, if it comes to a point that it is hurting others "close" enough or "below the belt", then by all means warn the guy and ban him if he does not stop.

:)