If someone posts something that they REALLY shouldn't, then a moderator can deal with it by removing it. No problem.
However, I have people who subscribe to threads and they can see something that REALLY they shouldn't see because they get notified of it by e-mail. A moderator can't remove that!
This could be a serious issue if something libellous was posted that the subscription function merrily e-mailed all over the place. I know it doesn't send the whole message, but it sends enough to potentially cause a problem.
Is there a way to still send the notification but without sending an excerpt from the message too? As I said, this issue is potentially critical.
This is the code from line 202 of messages.lang.php:
$l['email_subscription'] = "{1},
{2} has just replied to a thread which you have subscribed to at {3}. This thread is titled {4}.
Here is an excerpt of the message:
------------------------------------------
{5}
------------------------------------------
To view the thread, you can go to the following URL:
{6}/{7}
There may also be other replies to this thread but you will not receive anymore notifications until you visit the board again.
Thank you,
{3} Staff
------------------------------------------
Unsubscription Information:
If you would not like to receive any more notifications of replies to this thread, visit the following URL in your browser:
{6}/usercp2.php?action=removesubscription&tid={8}&key={9}
------------------------------------------";
So, removing:
Here is an excerpt of the message:
------------------------------------------
{5}
will remove the excerpt
That sounds good, but now I can't edit the language file because it says I need to CHMOD the files in this language set so that the server has permission to write to them. But they are already at 777!
(2009-10-06, 11:10 PM)labrocca Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot be held liable for something someone else says. So unless it's you that are posting these remarks you have nothing to worry about.
I humbly suggest that perhaps the law school you attended wasn't the best.
A forum owner is a publisher and a publisher can just as much be held liable for a libel as the author.
That is the law in the UK at any rate, where many website owners have been sued for libel. Perhaps it's different where you are?
Anyway, perhaps someone can confirm which files I am supposed to chmod, just in case I'm looking at the wrong ones (although I don't think so).
(2009-10-07, 12:16 AM)labrocca Wrote: [ -> ]Scenario Two: A live news event is one television. A person is being interviewed. They say something libelous. is the TV station responsible as well?
Yes, TV stations have been sued in those circumstances. They can avoid it by making an immediate disclaimer after the incident.
(2009-10-07, 12:16 AM)labrocca Wrote: [ -> ]Example action in the UK over the internet:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/mar...lmedia.law
I see no mention of the site owner or ISP being sued.
The key sentence there is "ISPs are not generally considered liable
as long as they act to take down potentially libellous material when notified." And "
Uncertainty remains over whether a
site owner such as the BBC would be liable".
(2009-10-07, 12:16 AM)labrocca Wrote: [ -> ]Here, this will seal the deal for me:
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/roo...-Libel.htm
This actually contradicts you: Mr Justice Eady did though make it clear that "I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim...I am focusing only on these particular circumstances."
The article doesn't directly address the question of the site owner's position, except to say that in those specific circumstances the site owner was guilty of slander rather than libel.
(2009-10-07, 12:16 AM)labrocca Wrote: [ -> ]And more UK win for me: http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/roo...ansite.htm
That link isn't any good either, as the wronged party never sought to bring a libel action against the site owner, so the question was not addressed.
Ya, the only thing it may do is make a few members not come back
.
(2009-10-07, 05:33 AM)labrocca Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a lawyer but my best friend is.
OK so ask your friend to read this and tell me why it's wrong:
"On the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed party.
On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material."
Source:
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
(2009-10-07, 07:19 AM)labrocca Wrote: [ -> ]The chance of actually being sued are minute mainly because the chance of a plantiff winning is even more remote. You might as well start wearing a helmet when you cross the street.
I think the main point has been lost here.
As a forum owner, I would not wish to publish or distribute libels about anyone, which may cause distress and damage to that person. The fact that they probably wouldn't sue me is really not the point. I'm trying to avoid libelling anyone in the first place, not trying to avoid being sued.
The labrocca point of view seems to be that no matter how distressing an allegation is, the person suffering the abuse probably won't sue you, so who cares if they are upset or have their life destroyed or not.
By the way, I have now solved the problem. There was confusion in my mind about whether I was editing Language Variables or whether I was editing with English (American). I think that's not too clear. Anyhow, it works OK now, so if anyone alleges that someone has had sex with a dog or whatever the allegation is, a moderator can delete it and it will no longer get sent out to everyone that has subscribed to the thread.
Query whether this is something that mybb should look at? Is it considered correct that people can circumvent moderator actions by subscribing to threads?
Stepping out of discussion. You have completely missed my point. Good luck.
To sid bridge,
sir i want to congratulate you for your conscientiousness, your caring for human values and your insight on the morality of the law.
Rarely i can read mature and intelligent comments on these forums and reading yours are quite refreshing.
Beeing a responsible forums administrator and protecting users from each other is a noble cause.
Thank you.