Got PROOF? If not then you are making an unlawful accusation here right now, of an illegal act by this website? Have I got that right? This is exactly what I'm talking about, and you're on notice you've made an accusation. Now prove it, or I might just ban you or report you. Anyone else got some unfounded, unproven, rumor based accusation they want to lodge against this site, me or any other member here? Let's get it out now, cause I'm ready to respond... I'm sick of these lies surfacing on this site, and I won't hesitate to ban ppl over this, no matter who they are. If you believe these lies, either leave now, or leave us evidence of your accusations that can be used against you in a court of law. and no, this isn't specific to ppl from the UK, it's their proposed law that made the news. However libel, defamation and slander are still illegal most everywhere. And we are mostly concerned about such attacks against our members or the site itself rather than celebrities or politicians. They're public figures and are subject to somewhat different rules regarding criticisms. And the bottom line is: If you ain't got proof, then keep yer trap shut, or you may be sued.
This isn't a new position for Hip Forums anyway. I don't know when the Forum Guidelines were created but I know what they state: "1. Illegal Postings: Postings that are illegal, such as Child Pornography (images), drug dealing or other illegal activities, images or information are not allowed. You accept full responsibility for what you post as we cannot be held liable for the activities of others on our sites. We will cooperate with the authorities should they investigate your illegal activities on our sites. Remember, Big Brother is watching everything on the Internet!" http://www.hipforums.com/forumguidelines.htm
That's pretty much been there since the beginning of the forums. Fortunately I've never had to report anyone so far, but we do respond to complaints and subpoenas. And just cause we're using fake identities here doesn't mean you're immune. There are real people behind each and the law doesn't care.
"If they refuse, however, they could be hauled before the courts and fined thousands of pounds for the hateful comments, even though they were made by a visitor to their website." What a cool world that would be to live in. I can't wait to move there. Looking on Orbits .com
Kenny, I agree with you completely. It's like suing the phone company because someone used their phone for an illegal act. I don't see them passing that kind of law for the reasons you stated before. And this kind of pressure on webmasters isn't good for the future of the Internet. I used to find it funny that individual countries or even cities have tried to regulate the content of the Internet. But now with current technology it's getting easier to monitor and control the entire system. And that is the end goal of governments, complete control of their citizens. Can't have ppl mouthing off, can we? Ask Mubarak and Gaddafi... In any case, it's the responsibility of websites to cooperate when the authorities make a request for ID on someone, not that they must stand in judgement of that person.
There's the Rub. Only courts can actually decide what is and is not illegal. That's the way the law work. Otherwise be would have George Zimmermen be put in charge of all final arbitrations of what is and is not illegal.
Don't get me going on phone companies and/ or government. Taxes and sur taxes on your phone bill verses the second amendment and free speech. You guy can take it from there. Okay?
Did I say Hip? Because I've been on a forum with a peado once and yeah, I gave enough the cyber-cops enough information and well, I'm assuming he got arrested and such, I don't know because I never go back there....because the admin's where jerks about it, didn't want to believe what their friend was and nobody was allowed to talk about it...until dude fucked up enough that I could go to the cops, I was just some making liable. Turns out I am a jerk, but I was right and I will continue to route out peado's on all sites that I visit. This is why I brought that up specifically. I've met the admin/liable resistance before and am embittered. I've been here personally. Those admins hid behind rules and kept their pet peado safe as long as they could and he kept doing his thing. Obviously from your reply, you've been there personally too - but I think you are assuming that we're talking about the same forum and the same person, that you thought this as all about you or whomever that you want to ban me over it. Obviously you're embittered from the flip side, over your experiences. But no where in that sentence did I say You or Hip. Now know how to do things without admin help to catch peados now. I don't ever except an admin to care for anything but their own arse. That's fine. That's their prerogative. But it doesn't mean it still can't be pissed about it or vocalize it when I think the topic fits.
90% of youtube comments are illegal then haha. people on youtube love to call you a stupid fucking ****, if you disagree with them. shall i sue them?
Still the point is being missed. The article isn't being read, or the words aren't being understood. It's not talking about name calling.
No it's not about keeping someone safe, necessarily. It's about having PROOF, as I mentioned before. As a matter of fact, I DID once ban a pedophile from this forum, once I saw evidence. I also had to ban his "victim" who seemed to be soliticiting. So much in fact that I thought he was actually a cop in disguise. Sure enough, a year or so after he was banned, the guy got busted. I didn't report them as I didn't have proof this guy had actually done anything other than talk to the kid. But there was certainly enough proof of intention to ban him. In this case he was using the Hipforums to possibly engage in illegal activity. And so was the kid, so they both got banned. Also the incident caused us to raise the age limit on the site to 16 from 13. That brings up a related issue. There's a big difference between talk and action. Talk can get you banned, but action will get you locked up in these situations. And as far as Proof goes, if you're gonna accuse someone, you better have proof of ILLEGAL ACTIONS, not just talk, and DEFINITELY not rumors.
"1. Illegal Postings: Postings that are illegal, such as Child Pornography (images), drug dealing or other illegal activities, images or information are not allowed. You accept full responsibility for what you post as we cannot be held liable for the activities of others on our sites. We will cooperate with the authorities should they investigate your illegal activities on our sites. Remember, Big Brother is watching everything on the Internet! welp no more drug section or anarchy
Drug dealing has never been allowed at Hip Forums. Discussion of drugs and discussion of Anarchy philosophy is not illegal.
If you read that like a lawyer would "images of pot" or "information" about growing it would be illegal....
Come on. Something like that has always been seen as unacceptable on a forum. Nothing to do with free speech. Are you telling me that without this new law Skip would not have taken any action on a poster telling someone else they are going to die? I know, but you said these were crimes. Defamation and libel are not crimes but civil wrongs - in fact the UNHRC recently declared that making libel a crime was inconsistent with freedom of expression as declared in the ICCPR. It's obvious Skip doesn't understand the proposed laws as his initial post says that trolls will be reported to "the authorities". What authorities? All it's saying is that if someone asks for a poster to be identified, HipForums will need to give that information or it can be sued instead of the poster. This is going to be a huge blow to anonymous posting, as it means your identity can be revealed. You don't even have to be a troll - you just have to have scared the website owner into thinking he might be sued if he doesn't identify a poster. Say goodbye to the drug forums - no one is going to post a trip report when the next day they could be subjected to a raid on their property by "the authorities".
That's nothing new. They've been doing it under the same circumstances this whole time. That's always been a possibility. See #1 of the Forum Guidelines. "We will cooperate with the authorities should they investigate your illegal activities on our sites. Remember, Big Brother is watching everything on the Internet!"
Well it's been nice knowing everyone. I've never read the guidelines, I guess. I have been concerned for a while that some of the things I've said on here could come back and bite me in the ass, and this just confirmed it for me.
I don't know if anyone ever does but checking that you have read the Forum Guidelines is part of the process gone through before you're ever able to post here.