DiscussMormonism.com

DonBradley wrote:Mormon Discussions was, of course, set up by my friend Dr. Shades as a place where anyone can have their say without censorship, such as that imposed by the "FAIR"/MAD mods. But it's not clear to me that such an approach leads to better discussion, rather than a greater ability to say things not worth either saying or reading.

The trouble with the censorship at FAIR/MAD is that isn't fair at all--it's ideologically biased. But this difficulty could be removed by moderating for substance rather than for ideology. The MAD mods throw out insubstantive and noxious posters--in theory. In practice, it is generally only insubstantive and noxious posters (and sometimes substantive posters) of a "critical" bent who get the boot. A board evenhandedly moderated for substance would be a much better place to talk, and would tend to promote much better discussions.

I suppose MDB has such a place--the Celestial Forum. But the Terrestrial Forum itself could be a much better place to talk if such things as purposeful baiting of other posters were excluded, and those posting such things were banished from it until they could show that they were worthy of progression from kingdom to kingdom. ;-)

Besides, the Celestial Forum is hardly used. Everyone knows that posting in the Celestial Forum is good way to make sure your thread is widely ignored. so everyone posts in the Terrestrial Forum, further ensuring that no one will even bother checking the Celestial Forum for new threads or new posts....

Don

DonBradley wrote:Hey Skippy,

I think that the standards for the Terrestrial Forum should probably be set a bit higher, and then enforced consistently. I think the mods may want to consider banning frequent violators from a given forum.

Don

DonBradley wrote:JAK,

Thank you for the demonstration that there are posts not worth reading. I shall forthwith not bother with yours. As to my own participation, see mine other thread.

And the idea that I should set up my own board to waste more of my time moderating dingbats like you is worse than absurd.

A. THE UNITED STATES

Libelous messages placed on the Internet in the United States is upheld to the same level of scrutiny as other forms of communication. However, the ease in which a person can keep their identity secret frequently poses a problem for finding a responsible party. Recent trends indicate that the owners and operators of on-line services will sometimes be held liable for what is placed on their services. Recent case law in the United States considering the liability of owners and operators of on-line services for items posted upon bulletin boards exemplify the evolving area of computer law. The courts have looked upon on-line libel with an eye upon traditional libel law and also recognizing the uniqueness of on-line circumstances.

The liability of the owners and operators of on-line systems for the posting of defamatory statements depends on whether they are considered by the courts as a distributor of information or a publisher of information. These two categories, publisher and distributor are treated differently in traditional libel law. The distributor of information, such as libraries, newsstands, bookstores, telephone and telegraph operators are not normally held liable. Publishers, such as newspapers and publishing houses are held responsible for the materials that they print. (Internet and the Law, p. 164). Thus, in the Internet world, if the accused is considered to be a distributor, then no liability will be found unless the individual had personal knowledge of the contents of the material. However, if the operator or owner is considered to be a publisher, then liability will be found.

B. GREAT BRITAIN
The problem of libel on the Internet is not solely an American problem. Recent events in England indicate that libel lawsuits for materials placed upon the Internet are becoming more common. For example, a libelous article about the Prime Minister and a fashionable London caterer placed on the Internet, resulted in a lawsuit against the "Scallywag". The case was settled when Scallywag promised to never repeat the libel again and with the understanding that republishing the material would be considered contempt of court, and punishable by imprisonment. (*Caught in a web of curiosity*, David Rennie, The Daily Telegraph, p. 29.) (emphasis added)

Libel suits for material placed upon the Internet promises to be an exciting and volatile area of law. The methods that different countries currently use to resolve libel issues will have varying rates of effectiveness, and should be viewed closely as new legislation is developed to more handle the growing number of Internet libel cases.