Cyprus-Forum.com

[MrH]

bill cobbett,

It's not the individuals whom are to blame but the Site Administrators - This is how it works in the Western World of I.T Policy and Compliance!

[lola-tulip]

It is clear from the rules that this is an opinion and debating forum.

"Cyprus-Forum.com is an independent discussion forum that allows people to freely and anonymously express their opinion and debate issues on a wide variety of subjects."

Opinions are personal, changeable or variable and are therfore exempted from charges of defamation.

[kurupetos]

Bring YFred back!

[ZoC]

How on Earth can you defame some one who is using a nick-name, someone who's real identity isn't known?

Are we not all characters of our own inventions?

Are figments of our imaginations gonna be dragged before the Courts?

hang on a minute... u mean you're not really bill cobbett? isn't there laws against identity theft?

[Piratis]

It is a matter of time before this kind of thing catches up with CF-type defamations.

Thought that some may be interested, including Admin. Why in the Cyprus Problem thread ? Because it is in this thread that the vast a majority of probable defamation (or incitements - different problem) occur.

There is no disputing that a £50,000 award of damages, made against the US website Digital Trends earlier this month for defamatory comments in two online discussion threads, is "unusually high" as Eversheds, the claimant's lawyers, put it in their press release. But what is the true value of this judgment? The website didn't acknowledge or defend the proceedings in London's high court and there is a plump question mark over its enforceability in America.

The fact that the claimant is a company also makes the substantial award worth a second glance because companies, unlike individuals who sue for libel, are not entitled to compensation for hurt and humiliation (they have no feelings) and this usually means lower general damages. Some campaigners for libel reform question whether companies should be allowed to sue for libel at all. However, as the law stands, a company is entitled to compensation for damage to its reputation and for the purpose of vindicating its good name.

The claimant company trades as Train2Game and SkillsTrain providing distance-learning courses in computer games design and IT and book-keeping. It sued Digital Trends over comments on discussion threads in 2006 and 2009 that it operated fraudulently. To make matters worse the words "Train2Game New Scam…" (the title of the later thread) came up in Google searches for the claimant. An attempt to join Google as a defendant failed last year when Mr Justice Eady held that the search engine was not responsible for defamatory statements produced in its search results.

Full article at :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/oct/28/libel-reform-medialaw

How exactly is this related with the forum and in particular with the Cyprus Problem section?

Which companies are defamed here? Are you talking about illegal establishments in the occupied part of Cyprus?

[Get Real!]

If the CF was to be acted upon, I have no doubt that it would probably have to pay Millions of Pounds by now! Admin, you better start saving up some serious money, or ask the Local Archbishop of Paphos to start Coffing up!

Instead of being grateful that someone has given you the opportunity to voice your opinion free of charge to a wide audience at their expense via this forum, you have the cheek on top to threaten him!

If I was the Admin I’d throw you off the board instantly!

[CopperLine]

How exactly is this related with the forum and in particular with the Cyprus Problem section?

There's another current thread asking about whether new blood is needed in CF. That thread and the continued hate-filled spite that often dominates the Cy Prob pages reminded me of the connections between the quality of debate in a forum and its tolerance of differences. If you add to this the question of the changing liabilities for defamation depending on the medium of expression then CF - like other fora - may have a problem or might have already stacked up problems.

It is not just authors of written defamations that are liable for libel, but publishers in English law are usually co-respondents in libel actions. So, often, are distributors eg WHSmiths. In an internet age defamation law has adapted, albeit with a time lag, to web-based media. Whoever owns CF is the publisher. Whoever is behind an avatar is the author. The ISP may perhaps be regarded as the distributor. Whilst it seems highly improbable that a person behind an avatar could take action against another avatar, it is quite plausible for a real person who has been defamed by an avatar (and hence a real person behind that) to take an action. For example, suppose Alexander Downer alleged that Yialousa had libeled him then, in principle, the court could oblige CF to reveal the real identity of Yialousa.

The point of posting the article at the beginning of this thread was simply to indicate that (i) the door has already been opened to finding that discussion threads can be a medium of defamation and that (ii) it crosses jurisdictions eg USA to UK. Other libel cases have opened the door to obliging internet poster to reveal their real identity; and so, little by little the door opens fully to litigation for comments on discussion fora.

It is simply no defence to say,

"It is clear from the rules that this is an opinion and debating forum.

"Cyprus-Forum.com is an independent discussion forum that allows people to freely and anonymously express their opinion and debate issues on a wide variety of subjects."

These may be the forum rules but they are not defamation law, and if one defames then it is actionable.

If one had to reveal one's real identity would you write in the same way about other CF contributors who had also revealed their real identity ? Or is the thin veil of avatar anonymity the reason for one's 'fearless' defamation of others.

[CopperLine]

Erm, so can we claim damages for all the wrongful legal advice you've spewed at us?

Did you act on it ? No. Did you suffer a loss on acting on it ? No. Did I offer you legal advice ? No. Is it my honestly held belief that you are a psychologically troubled and rather poisonous dimwit ? Yes.

[Get Real!]

But does an alias to alias attack constitute defamation?

I think that’s what you’ll find 99% of the times on the CF.

[Piratis]

How exactly is this related with the forum and in particular with the Cyprus Problem section?

There's another current thread asking about whether new blood is needed in CF. That thread and the continued hate-filled spite that often dominates the Cy Prob pages reminded me of the connections between the quality of debate in a forum and its tolerance of differences. If you add to this the question of the changing liabilities for defamation depending on the medium of expression then CF - like other fora - may have a problem or might have already stacked up problems.

It is not just authors of written defamations that are liable for libel, but publishers in English law are usually co-respondents in libel actions. So, often, are distributors eg WHSmiths. In an internet age defamation law has adapted, albeit with a time lag, to web-based media. Whoever owns CF is the publisher. Whoever is behind an avatar is the author. The ISP may perhaps be regarded as the distributor. Whilst it seems highly improbable that a person behind an avatar could take action against another avatar, it is quite plausible for a real person who has been defamed by an avatar (and hence a real person behind that) to take an action. For example, suppose Alexander Downer alleged that Yialousa had libeled him then, in principle, the court could oblige CF to reveal the real identity of Yialousa.

The point of posting the article at the beginning of this thread was simply to indicate that (i) the door has already been opened to finding that discussion threads can be a medium of defamation and that (ii) it crosses jurisdictions eg USA to UK. Other libel cases have opened the door to obliging internet poster to reveal their real identity; and so, little by little the door opens fully to litigation for comments on discussion fora.

It is simply no defence to say,

"It is clear from the rules that this is an opinion and debating forum.

"Cyprus-Forum.com is an independent discussion forum that allows people to freely and anonymously express their opinion and debate issues on a wide variety of subjects."

These may be the forum rules but they are not defamation law, and if one defames then it is actionable.

If one had to reveal one's real identity would you write in the same way about other CF contributors who had also revealed their real identity ? Or is the thin veil of avatar anonymity the reason for one's 'fearless' defamation of others.

But how is this related with the article you posted about defamation of companies?

Beyond that I agree that those who own the forum could theoretically have some responsibility for what is published here. This is why they should ban all those criminals who promote and support illegalities, such as the "trnc".