FORUM RULES

[sailorgirl]

We have very few rules on this forum. The reason for this is because we want our members to have a good time here.

However we still need to protect ourselves.

Apparently it has come time again to remind everyone about our few rules. We had to close a thread down today and delete posts that had crossed the line.

We are passionite people. It is our passion that makes this forum fun. However, there are people and situations in the world that when we as a forum discuss them, that the thin line gets crossed. That is why we have to have some rules. If you have a question about our few rules please contact either myself or Hibou via pm. We welcome the opportunity to address your questions and issues.

1. Follow the Golden Rule...Do until to others as you would have them do unto you.

2. Post links vice photos.

3. Do not discuss children under the age of 18 years old.

4. No profanity. Remember to use your !@#$%^&*() keys instead of the words. Not everyone that visits this site is over the age of 18.

5. Vicious, Nasty, Mean, Attacking comments will not be tolerated. If a member gets in the habit of posting vicious, nasty, mean, attacking comments they will be dealt with via warnings, suspensions and banning.

Because of recent posts, I have decided to create a NEW rule.

6. We as a forum WILL NOT discuss the MOTHERS of Albert's illegitimate children in any way, sense, or forum. Why? Because these women bring out the worst in us.


Sailorgirl 18 Feb 2009

[hibou]

A little reminder as the ball approaches, we need to be careful about what choice of words we use so we don't end up getting shut down or have a lawsuit thrown at us. By all means post your opinions just choose your words carefully. Thanks!!!

[bbb]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... uling.html

*But in what many consider will be a far reaching ruling the New York Supreme Court ruled that Google must reveal the identity of the blogger.
Judge Joan Madden rejected the blogger's claim that the blogs were a 'modern day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting' and should not be treated as factual assertions.

[hibou]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207669/Vogue-model-v-Google-Blogger-called-whore-forced-unmask-landmark-ruling.html

*But in what many consider will be a far reaching ruling the New York Supreme Court ruled that Google must reveal the identity of the blogger.
Judge Joan Madden rejected the blogger's claim that the blogs were a 'modern day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting' and should not be treated as factual assertions.

OK GUYS THE LANGUAGE POLICE ARE NOW ON PATROL. We've been slipping lately sooooo now we have to go PC for our own good. Just use the ****** we can insert our own interpretations. No foul/no harm.

Karma to bbb for finding that one. SAVED BY THE MOD!!!

[sailorgirl]

Great find bbb...yes karma for you.

[bbb]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tec ... le1257768/

Mr. Wagner, however, said his client would definitely proceed with a defamation suit against the blogger.

In court filings, Ms. Cohen said she “suffered damages including personal humiliation, mental anguish and damage to her reputation and standing in the community and in her industry” as a result of the offensive postings.

blogger posted photographs and “defamatory statements concerning her appearance, hygiene and sexual conduct that are malicious and untrue.”

The case spotlights a new area of law where legal standards are still being worked out

[hibou]

I have decided to resign as a mod/ Administrator. I can not risk a lawsuit. It only takes one person to cause problems. As an Adm/ mod I can be sued personally.
By not adhering to keeping certain degrading words out of an opinion, it becomes a huge risk for me personally. I do not want to spend money on an attorney to write a disclaimer for this website.

For those hellbent on not sticking to the rules. Esther has won and so has Charlene. Congrats. This is exactly what the Charlene supporters want. Get us shut down or sued. There are ways to give an honest open opinion without getting in the gutter. paca is absolutely right. There are ways to word things and speak your mind. No one would expect this forum to turn all gaga over Charlene but we don't need to liabel ourselves either. Esther came on here with a purpose and she must be grinning from ear to ear. Street smart!!! You guys are much to bright to get into the gutter.

[sailorgirl]

I have been talking to my lawyer about the recent court ruling and she agrees with what hibou has said.

Is there someone out there who is interested in taking over the website let me know. Otherwise if the language and degrading rumors persist I will shut the forum down.

Esther and charlene have accomplished what thye set out to do. They have eliminated the one place where folks do not see her as sweet and perfect but the person she truly is.

[bbb]

i'm depressed at the thought of hibou going and the forum shut down OMG

it's going to be allright, no one wants that to happen DO THEY!!!! i really don't think anyone wants "hellster" to get the last laugh

[sailorgirl]

Update: We have followed the recommendations that I received from legal counsel.

First: Give the poster a chance to provide proof to their statements. I posted a special message directly to Esther asking her to do this. Her choice was silence.

Second: If no proof was given or if the proof could not hold water...Do not just suspend but ban them. Stop the offender from posting false statements on the forum. I have now done this.

-------------

Because of the interviews, statements on charlene's own facebook page and off the cuff comments charlene has made that has been documented by the press it is felt that we can not be sued or threaten for the majority of posts on this forum, since we (the poster) normally state it is our feeling our belief or are commenting directly to charlene's statement.

But we need to watch our language. We can not us cuss words. So please use milder phrases or @#$% or XXX. Trust me everyone here will know what you are saying.

-----------------------

I have no plans at this time to shut down the forum. I come here for laughter, for giggles, as a pressure release from my real life, as an escape. I love it here. I love hearing from my "internet friends". I want to know what Lynda is cooking, how bbb's doctor appointments have gone, how hibou's daughter has done at her competitions, how moley is doing with her shop, how creative is coping with her job, how paca's twins are doing and yes how LouLou is planning on taking over Alaska..just like Natasha from Bulliwinkle..Always wanting to expand her terrority. I will do my best to keep us together as long as we want to be together. If we ever do shut down I hope it will be by a majority vote not because we have too.

So what do you think? Do I have your help and support in this?

[bbb]

AYE Matey

Sailorgirl Thank you for all your time, effort and determination for the forum.

love the lou2- Natasha thing ROFL operation Natasha, first alaska, north america and then the world!

[sailorgirl]

that's our LouLou. We have to keep the forum open just so we can try to control her. We did fail when she sent her Bloomers or Knickers flying but she took us by surprize there.

[hibou]

Thanks Sailor and bbb. You guys are saints!!!!

[bbb]

this is adrienne post on specifics, i thought it should be here for future reference.

My best understanding is this:
a) if you state something as a *fact*, AND if it is not true, AND the person you do it about can be shown to have suffered damages from it- (not necessarily material- damage to reputation/good name counts)you are guilty of defamation under the law -malice doesn't necessarily enter into it under US law.

b) For your statement to not be a "fact", you have to have at the very least the phrase "I think" or "I believe"... somewhere in the sentence (or something analogous like "it's my opinion)

b) as ridiculous as it seems what I was told by my lawyer is that you can make any allegation you want no matter how ridiculous or outrageous, and make it without knowing whether it's true, if you have the statement "I believe" and "I think" in the sentence (unless you do it with malice- which is difficult to prove)

So that's the *law* as it was explained to me, here's the reality:

c) Regardless of whether something is truly defamation, generally any negative statement about a person that causes them damage can cause someone to sue you for defamation. If it looks like it caused the person damages- even if potentially true- it doesn't generally get thrown out of court, it's a hearing- which means even if you are correct you have to spend the money to defend yourself AND you have to prove that your statements were true... Even in the US when it's generally true that you are innocent until proven guilty, because of the standards/rules, the burden of proof is placed on YOU as the defendant not your accusor-(the idea is that once a person's reputation is damaged it can be impossible to repair the damage) YOU have to provide *evidence* that what you said was true, evidence you may not have access to- your accusor just has to prove damages which is generally much easier. For this reason, what my lawyer told me was that most people sued for defamation are advised by their lawyer to settle unless they have hard evidence in hand when accused. (e.g. photos/email/mail/recordings/public statements etc from the person sueing you- calling the Washington DC madam who publically threated to expose her cliental book a nasty name is not defamation, calling someone else that name IS unless you know it to be true, arguing a case for it to be true based on press reports, rumors, assumptions etc.. is NOT the same as *knowing* it to be true- knowing means first hand knowledge here...

d) While I am not a lawyer- based on other highly publicized cases, my understanding is that it goes by the law not of the country of origin of the poster... but based on where the *servers* are- which from the automatic time stamps appear to be US. If you think about it- that makes sense because that's where any "crime" was committed- the physical bytes were...that is where they would go to confiscate evidence

e) Under US law it is considerably easier to sue someone for defamation, than in other countries

When I originally posted this information years ago, pretty much everyone accused me of trying to shut the forum down, that I had some hidden agenda, that I didn't know what I was talking about. What I was doing was quite the opposite, I was trying to help the mods avoid getting sued- I was posting it in the context of things being posted as fact, that I had *personal* knowledgeof were not true and was worried about SG etc. and pointing out that if anyone is going to call people nasty names/make accusations etc... then they should at the very least be making it crystal clear it's an opinion by posting "I believe/I think/I feel/etc... at the beginning of the sentences where they do that. If you want to fall on your own sword fine and take the risk to assert your free speech that's fine and dandy but the risk you take when you do that is not just yours but the admin/mods as well...

If you were to go back and look at Esther's posts- she said had at least a few sentences in there like Albert does X, Albert does Y....not that "I heard". My understanding is that the law considers those statements of facts because there are no qualifiers in them... (even "I heard" which is also problematic, passing rumor doesn't indemnify you because you don't know it to be true and it can cause damages and you played a part in spreading it (something known as "detraction"- which involves making private foibles of a person, public with the intent of malice thereby damaging their good name in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwords if you hadn't done something)... Does adding those qualifiers make you bullet proof- you'd have to ask a lawyer that, but IMO that's the minimum people should be doing when making statements that they *personally* don't know to be true...

So I don't think people have to be terrified to express free speech- but let's just understand what free speech is and isn't, free speech doesn't give you the right to defame someone - which in my opinion the post by Esther reeked of defamation - IMO SG was wise to bann Esther-

look at it this way using basic logic: if what she said was untrue, it appeared to be at best defamation. On the other hand at worst if what she said was true, it could have been legally interpreted as either an attempt to extort/blackmail, or a carrying out of a blackmail threat. The fact that logically what she posted either had to be true or not true, and therefore IMO was defamation at best, or extortion at worst, was a really good case to:

a) not believe a word she said
and
b) bann her.

Basically IMO a lot of people on the forum have fallen into the *habit*- for whatever reason- of repeating rumors and expressing opinions as if they are facts and that is the part that will potentially get the admins/mods in trouble if they don't take action to delete those... So again JMO, but I think all that is really needed is that when someone is going to post something is to STOP and THINK and go hmmm do I know for a *fact* that this is true, NO, then maybe I need to make it clear that it's my opinion...

All it takes on the internet to do that is 3 little letters: IMO

[sailorgirl]

For the most part we are doing fine here. Please everyone do not feel that you are being targeted or singled out, that is not the intent.

Several folks have voiced that they are going to leave. We have gotten through the worst it's time to heal.

[hibou]

THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SHUT US DOWN> KEEP THE RANTING TO A DULL ROAR OR A PRIVATE MESSAGE> THANKS!