3 ms·

Legal risk to UK based forums etc has always been high. This article gives a nice (but now outdated) guide to what those risk ara and how to handle them [1].

by shubb 14y ago

Legal risk to UK based forums etc has always been high. This article gives a nice (but now outdated) guide to what those risk ara and how to handle them [1]. It concluded that you were at less risk if you did not moderate, because if you did, and failed to cull posts that were illegal (hate speech is illegal in the UK, also yuckier things), you were less likely to get in trouble. Effectively, this forces a site to moderate, which means they become exposed if someone posts a nasty and they don't remove it within a reasonable amount of time. I was troubled by this when I set up a forum for a largish youth theater. An organization like that in the UK is very into child protection (criminal record checks all round), and they worried that they would be responsible if the kids bullied each other or posted inappropriate photos. We really didn't want to spend time moderating. The most surprising things are criminal or at least civil offenses in the UK. No 1st amendment here. In practice, we'd probably just run a private forum like that anyway, but if we were sensible, I guess now we'd not do it. [1]http://www.out-law.com/page-7841 http://www.out-law.com/page-7841

buro9 14y ago
> Effectively, this forces a site to moderate That was not my reading of it. In fact, were you to moderate it then you would have no defence under the EU E-Commerce Act. I do run unmoderated forums in the UK, and have in the past been on the receiving end of legal action regarding some user generated content. My reading of this and other laws that work in this area (user generated content and liability thereof) is that it is best to not moderate at all, to have no editorial process that intervenes, but to have clear policy and mechanisms to allow notifications to be received. And ultimately, to record and act on those notifications. In terms of moderation, one might argue that it is a form of reactive moderation. But I would not argue that, as there is no expression of an editorial policy in handling notifications based on legal merit and only intervening in site content when notified.
- shubb 14y ago
  Thanks. That is really useful. Luckily, I've never faced legal action for... anything really, so it's good to have some insight here from someone who has.

by shubb 14y ago

buro9 14y ago

> Effectively, this forces a site to moderate That was not my reading of it. In fact, were you to moderate it then you would have no defence under the EU E-Commerce Act. I do run unmoderated forums in the UK, and have in the past been on the receiving end of legal action regarding some user generated content. My reading of this and other laws that work in this area (user generated content and liability thereof) is that it is best to not moderate at all, to have no editorial process that intervenes, but to have clear policy and mechanisms to allow notifications to be received. And ultimately, to record and act on those notifications. In terms of moderation, one might argue that it is a form of reactive moderation. But I would not argue that, as there is no expression of an editorial policy in handling notifications based on legal merit and only intervening in site content when notified.

shubb 14y ago
Thanks. That is really useful. Luckily, I've never faced legal action for... anything really, so it's good to have some insight here from someone who has.