What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

Are you saying that this place shouldn't practice balance? Surely as far as Psiencequest is concerned 'defamation' is 'defamation', irrespective of the target?

No, of course not. I'm saying that you should expect those high profile sceptics to get a hard time considering the influence they have "out there". I'm NOT saying that unfair defamation is acceptable on either side.

No, of course not. I'm saying that you should expect those high profile sceptics to get a hard time considering the influence they have "out there". I'm NOT saying that unfair defamation is acceptable on either side.

For example, I posted an article from the Daily Telegraph which included an interview with Randi. The article went against the media grain by exposing quite a dark side to Randi's character. In the interview he is damned by his own words so this is not something I made up or that some biased proponent fabricated. Nevertheless I was still criticised by a sceptical member for being critical of Randi.

This is not defamation but it is an attempt to bring balance. Perhaps the balance here is heavy on the proponent side but that is far outweighed by the sheer volume of sceptical articles, blogs, hatchet-jobs and media scorn heaped upon proponents and any reported evidence in favour of psi phenomena. 

Sceptics have no shortage of sceptical links to post while proponents have to rely on anecdotes and poorly funded research because the establishment has a vested interest in the current paradigm - they would not be the establishment if that were not the case. For sceptics to come here and play victim is somewhat ironic, wouldn't you say?

Free speech is the right to shout theatre in a crowded fire. Abbie Hoffman.
While the above might not lead to ideal forum moderation, I would suggest that humor and perhaps absurdisum. Can be useful tools.

I'd be in favor of allowing almost everything to remain, and to police the forum almost not at all. The only exceptions I'd make are for hate speech directed at groups or individuals, and obvious trolling. I wouldn't even consider removing Max's posts. He's obviously very interested in this stuff and willing to engage with arguments. I feel like the posts were removed because the scientists showed up and it made the forum look bad, but the scientists are adults, too, and I'm sure they've seen it all before...whether it influences their future participation is to be seen, but I agree with Max that it's a slippery slope when you start editing the content, especially when the offending party is more than willing to defend his words.

[Laird]

I don't think this is an easy question at all. It would make discussions very difficult if someone is not allowed to say, for example, "I think Uri Geller faked those results", without being able to prove it.

I'd be in favor of allowing almost everything to remain, and to police the forum almost not at all. The only exceptions I'd make are for hate speech directed at groups or individuals, and obvious trolling. I wouldn't even consider removing Max's posts. He's obviously very interested in this stuff and willing to engage with arguments. I feel like the posts were removed because the scientists showed up and it made the forum look bad, but the scientists are adults, too, and I'm sure they've seen it all before...whether it influences their future participation is to be seen, but I agree with Max that it's a slippery slope when you start editing the content, especially when the offending party is more than willing to defend his words.

Thank you, Chris and berkelon, for providing contrasting posts (to the idea of policing defamation) that make us think. This progresses the conversation.

Please let me probe a little:

Chris, what do you think of the idea that if somebody has no proof, they ought not to say "I think Uri Geller cheated" in the first place? Is this way too draconian or is it being fair to Uri? Does it matter whether the claim is couched in the language of opinion and possibility rather than outright assertion?

Chris and berkelon: what would your reaction be if somebody defamed you in a thread on this forum? e.g. somebody says: Chris is not a real mathematician, he flunked out of his degree, and has been fired by every employer he's worked for? Or somebody says something similar for you, berkelon (I don't know enough about you to construct an equally personally defamatory statement)? Would you want that person to retract their statements? Would you want a moderator to force them to do that? Or would it be enough that you had the opportunity to set the record straight and dismiss their claims personally? What if, despite your best arguments to show that the defamatory statements were false, the claims were repeated again and again?

Thank you, Chris and berkelon, for providing contrasting posts (to the idea of policing defamation) that make us think. This progresses the conversation.

Please let me probe a little:

Chris, what do you think of the idea that if somebody has no proof, they ought not to say "I think Uri Geller cheated" in the first place? Is this way too draconian or is it being fair to Uri? Does it matter whether the claim is couched in the language of opinion and possibility rather than outright assertion?

Chris and berkelon: what would your reaction be if somebody defamed you in a thread on this forum? e.g. somebody says: Chris is not a real mathematician, he flunked out of his degree, and has been fired by every employer he's worked for? Or somebody says something similar for you, berkelon (I don't know enough about you to construct an equally personally defamatory statement)? Would you want that person to retract their statements? Would you want a moderator to force them to do that? Or would it be enough that you had the opportunity to set the record straight and dismiss their claims personally? What if, despite your best arguments to show that the defamatory statements were false, the claims were repeated again and again?

Well, before I came to the thread I had assumed the site owners would be legally responsible for what's on the site, at least if something had been brought to their attention. So I was ready to say "Of course the site owners have to be able to protect themselves by removing defamatory material." And that seems reasonable to me anyway.

But I still think it is obviously very difficult to discuss parapsychology without allowing people to say they think cheating has occurred, even if they have only reasons for suspicion rather than proof. I'm afraid I don't have the answer to the difficulty, but I think part of it would have to be taking into account the circumstances of each case rather than applying an inflexible rule. For example, mathematicians should obviously be given more protection than professional psychics   . (How did you find out all that stuff about me, anyway?)

Seriously, I think the possibility of cheating or fraud in faking paranormal phenomena probably should be treated differently from other kinds of defamation (such as sex offences and so on). And perhaps when it comes to such cheating the line could be drawn between stating it as an opinion and stating it as a fact if it's unproven. But that would probably leave you with difficult decisions, because sceptics often claim fraud has been proven when proponents don't accept that it has.

Also, there's the question of whether it's OK to defame dead people. The law gives them no protection, which seems a bit unfair. But in historical cases often proof can't be expected.

I think that Dean acted graciously despite being unfamiliar with Max's supernatural stubbornness... But will the next one be as kind? At the very least, even if consensus leads to keeping this kind of comment, the administration should include a disclaimer to avoid getting dragged into a libel action (which 'weak' or not, always ends with money being wasted).