In regards to the post at:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37301

It was locked when I tried to reply, and I imagine locked for a reason (I don't know why), so I'll be brief. The only way a place like WHT would be liable for libel, is if they didn't allow the party being defamed to respond. On a public posting board, anyone can say anything they want, and the other party has a right to also publicly refute those statements. This is fair and makes sense, so WHT can't be held liable, even if the person committing the act can (if it's proven that they knowingly posted false claims to defame a person or business).

This is why tabloid's are difficult to sue, because celebrities can refute the statements and claims by them, because they are public people. Since the person posting the claims can post, so can the person in their own defense. If, however, the person posted defaming comments or claims about a person or company and WHT denied them the ability to refute these claims (by a number of reasons), or posted them on the web site and didn't allow the person or company to have the same fair chance to counter these claims/statements, then yes, they would be liable if the person or company has bogus and defaming claims said about them and couldn't counter those statements in the same medium. In what degree they would be liable, would depend, of course and they might not have anything to worry about still and the other person can post on their web site too (which is when it gets a little sticky) -- but that's not going to happen here.

Finally, other people not involved in WHT as an owner or staff member making comments, does not mean that WHT has to remove, edit or otherwise hide them. There's protection to freedom of speech. This means, that people are able to judge for themselves of what they read and not have a court of law decide who can say what, because the masses are so foolish. I.e., Someone posts a defaming claim publicly, the person can come and defend themselves in the same thread or same board, and people can judge for themselves if it seems true. That person can defend themselves in court and sometimes should, but that has nothing to do with WHT. Also, to prove who the real poster is to sue, good luck anyway! Finally, unless WHT posts something on their site or doesn't allow the person to defend themselves fairly and evenly in the same medium, then WHT can not be liable. Trust me on this, and although I might not be 100% correct or accurate about this, I've studied enough of it to know that what I said is pretty accurate, if not completely.

Also, don't confuse what I've said to mean that anyone can claim anything they want about anyone and not be liable, but I meant this in regards to a public web board. The accuser can post, and so can the defendant and people are assumed to be wise enough to A: Research and verify anyone's defaming claims before deciding, and B: To be intelligent and informed about it enough (refer to "A") enough to discern the truth for themselves. The laws are not to protect people from idiot's that will believe anything they read, at least not altogether and at least to not hold chat room and web board site owners liable, unless they are personally involved and deny the offended party their fair responses. Of course, seek legal counsel if you are not sure, as always. Cheers!

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
so I'll be brief


I'd hate to see an indepth post :D :D

Originally posted by The Prohacker



I'd hate to see an indepth post :D :D

And you probably think you're joking too... Heh... Tell me, do you get annoyed by the 10,000 character limit? If your answer is not, then you don't live in my world. *L*

Basically, Tim's posting has a lot of merit. However, there are two additional points I would like to add.

1-Whether or not the suit has merit is often secondary. One can take legal action, which the board might have to defend and which could be costly even if not winnable by the plaintiff.

2-In front of juries, these cases have sometimes gone contrary to Tim's post. Example: Carol Burnett vs. The Star. Even then, judges have often overturned the awards. Still, can be a long, ugly, expensive process.

Thankfully, we have board owners here who, while cautious, allow a generous tolerance to freedom of speech. I admire the owner as well as the moderators for their patience, diligence, and professionalism in reaching an appropriate level of control.

The People vs Larry Flint comes to mind...

This is true, I should have been clear, or rather, at least considered this aspect. I think what I said was correct, but the scenarios can change the dynamics of the issue, like Incognito stated. In other words, if it's obvious and harmful defaming claims, that WHT knew were untrue, then perhaps they could be held liable for allowing it to transpire and not taking any action. Even though they'd surely not be held liable in the end, it would still cost time and money to deal with. However, at the same time, it can depend. The example of the tabloids was one issue, and if WHT wasn't the actual publisher, but just allowed the general public to comment and claim and defend against one another, it would be very unlikely that they'd at all be held liable even initially. After all, it's a board that anyone can post to, and no one, and no court would hold them liable for not controlling every aspect of all the information and posted content posted or exchanged here in this board and site. I just don't see that happening, but as with anything in the US anyway when dealing with laws, anything pretty much can happen, even if it's a ludicrous thought (but then again, why shouldn't a web board take some action against gross libel -- but I think they would if it was that bad, and not because of potential legal ramifications), but I'm not a lawyer, nor a judge and I'm certainly not going to be in the jury (nor all of the jury members), so who knows what crazy verdicts can be handed out -- no matter what the law states or implies (implied law is a frightenly reckless and stupid thing), after all, we all remember O.J., I'm sure. :-) Nonetheless, interesting points to consider, thanks for the feedback.

Well, in retrospect, I may have closed that one a bit early (was trying to do a bit of damage control at the time and keep from having 16 threads about roughly the same thing going). There was a bit of misinformation in that one, but anywhoooo...

About this thread. We actually deal with this at least once a month. Person posts one thing, host posts another and often the host emails us demanding that the posts be removed.

In the end, I do not decide who is right or wrong in a 'he said, she said' situation. Without knowing the facts, without proof or agreement between the parties involved, I cannot possibly determine the actual truth. If someone can show me some reasonable proof as to why the post is unture, the post(s) will be removed. Just saying it isn't true isn't enough, and if that's the case, we ask people to tell their side of the story directly on the forum.