What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

[Laird]

Defamation between members is a *bit* easier... but it really needs to be serious for a moderator to get involved. If somebody posted somebody's true identity, and said they were a rapist... that's serious... it leaves this forum, and can go out into the world.

How about the example I gave of somebody accusing you of having a mental illness which turned you into a pathological liar? Should that be policed? That's also serious and can go out into the world.

But also on member to member claims. You claimed that I had made a statement about Radin which you felt was a serious accusation, and stated that my statement was a fact, and asked me to withdraw it. When I would not, you removed sections of my posts. But your claim about what I said remains there for all to see, as a fact. But that claim as a fact, is actually untrue. Further, the removal of my statements prevents me from defending myself, as you've removed the evidence I would need to do so. So it's game set and match to you, and that issue was a member to member issue as far as I'm concerned... Laird vs Max_B...

OK, but that occurred before the discussion in this thread. If it were to happen again, I wouldn't take that action, because I think the caveat about criticism of researchers being allowed would trump the fact that Dean's a member of this forum - he essentially just dropped in once or twice and then left. Perhaps we ought to tweak the rules to make it clear that that sort of potentially defamatory criticism of researchers is not to be policed by moderators even if the researcher is a member of the forum (assuming that there's general agreement on that).

I've also told you that if the consensus turns out to be that claims like those you made of Dean should be allowed, then I'll restore your posts as they were before I edited them. So far that seems likely.

You're now suggesting that you *can* make the right decision between members. However, due to my experience above, until you can get greater clarity on the definition, and the distinction between an attack - 'a legitimate criticism', and an attack - 'illegitimate attack'  I don't think moderators should get involved in spats between members... legitimate vs illegitimate seems pretty vague, and open to all sorts of interpretation. And I already have ample evidence that you can make errors in your interpretation.

I think we agree that there is a line somewhere though. If a member were to follow you around every thread you post in swearing at you and/or belligerently calling you names rather than addressing your points/arguments, then a moderator should step in. That's quite obviously an illegitimate attack. Whereas if somebody says something like "I think you made a mistake there, you really should reconsider", then that's legitimate criticism. So, if you want to help to make the distinction clearer, so we know exactly where the line is drawn, then please do that. But in any case, we're committed as moderators going forward to being as liberal as we can - my intervention re your remarks on Dean Radin does not reflect the way we (and I) will approach things going forward.

[Laird]

This thread was about defamation... and it looks like that is not going to get acted upon by moderators for researchers and others in the public eye. But I can see it needs actioning for members for serious incidents, like "your a rapist", but they have to be serious. But honestly this issue came up due to my comments on Radin... and that's where it should end.

I'm thinking now that we remove the distinction between members and non-members, so that moderators only take action on serious defamation (unsubstantiated allegations of sex crimes, mental illness, etc), and ignore allegations of researcher fraud or incompetence, regardless of whether or not the target/researcher is a member of the forum.

When you get issues come up about attacks on members by members (not serious defamation), I'm sure you can look at this issue again, but I've never seen any, and dont really expect to. Because you can't define attacks ( legitimate vs illegitimate), I think moderators should leave well alone.

But we can define the difference - and I did to some extent in my last post (i.e. somebody following you around every thread cursing at you and calling you names versus somebody saying, "I think you made a mistake there, maybe reconsider?"). I would strongly argue that we ought not to leave the former situation alone. If you want to help contribute to a more nuanced distinction then I'm very open to it.

Instead. Just stick to updating the PSI rules for defamation. My comments on Radin raised an issue, you asked for feedback on that issue, and leave it there. Trying to deal with hypothetical member on member attacks at the same time, without any clear definition, doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Just leave this out until it comes up on PSI, then raise a thread where the behaviour/comments in question can be discussed (like this one), and a desision can be reached again.

Fair enough - moderation policy on personal attacks is beyond the scope of this thread, which is about moderation policy on defamation. That said, I don't think we should leave that discussion until an actionable case comes up - better to be prepared in advance.

I think we agree that there is a line somewhere though. If a member were to follow you around every thread you post in swearing at you and/or belligerently calling you names rather than addressing your points/arguments, then a moderator should step in.

Maybe this should be discussed a bit, because that's the situation with tim. I've noticed he shows up in threads I'm participating in to post derogatory and defamatory statements directed at me. And I noticed he has posted false statements about what I've said or done in other areas of the forum where I'm not participating. I don't know how much of this is going on, as I have him on ignore now. My intention was not to ask for moderation unless it began to disrupt discussion. Do we really think a moderator should step in regardless? And isn't tim going to claim his actions are legitimate?

Linda

Maybe this should be discussed a bit, because that's the situation with tim. I've noticed he shows up in threads I'm participating in to post derogatory and defamatory statements directed at me. And I noticed he has posted false statements about what I've said or done in other areas of the forum where I'm not participating. I don't know how much of this is going on, as I have him on ignore now. My intention was not to ask for moderation unless it began to disrupt discussion. Do we really think a moderator should step in regardless? And isn't tim going to claim his actions are legitimate?

Linda

"I've noticed he shows up in threads I'm participating in to post derogatory and defamatory statements directed at me. And I noticed he has posted false statements about what I've said or done in other areas of the forum where I'm not participating."

By all means, kindly reproduce them, Linda ! The only remark I made about you was (previous to the post I just made because it made me so angry to see you making false statements about cardiac arrest) that you are a master of obfuscation.

This statement has been made by Alex Tsakiris several times and was one of the reasons you were banned from Skeptiko.

This statement has been made by Alex Tsakiris several times and was one of the reasons you were banned from Skeptiko.

Now that is funny.

Recently, moderators have made two decisions with respect to defamatory posts:

• Ian (Ninshub) deleted a post by Leuders which made unsubstantiated allegations of sex crimes against a (deceased) public figure in mediumship.
  
• I edited out of two of Max_B's posts defamatory insinuations regarding Dean Radin and IONS after Max refused to retract them.
  

These decisions were basically made on instinct / gut feel. We don't have an official moderation policy on this issue. I'm starting this thread to see whether the community supports these decisions and what, in general should be our policy on defamatory posts.

We apparently in the jurisdiction in which the forum is hosted (the USA) have no legal responsibility for defamatory posts made by members, so "covering ourselves" is not an issue. The issue is more ethical (it's not right to defame people) and practical (public figures in parapsychology might be less willing to join the forum or be interviewed by us if they know that they can be defamed on our forum without consequences).

Sci, too, has raised this issue. I forget which post it was in, but he asked whether, in the potential conspiracy theory forum, members will be free to speculate on supposed crimes by public figures without the need to provide compelling evidence. My thoughts on this are that it appears that the poll will result in us having essentially private forums for both politics and CT, and that we can tolerate if not endorse that sort of thing in private.

Your thoughts on all of this welcome.

The question at its heart is: should someone yell fire if they can't prove there is a fire?  To impugn someones character by unsubstantiated allegations should not be allowed.

Now that is funny.

Could you elaborate, Berkelon ?