psychos

[Hippy]

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > But don't a lot of websites only have the author's side of the
story?
> > Don't a lot of books?
>
> The difference is that these have identifiable ownership, that is,
book
> authors are not anonymous, website authors can be traced, and the accusations there are
> attributable and verifiable to an extent. Anonymous contributions of complaints can't be checked
> for veracity.

So what if each one of us set up a website - then it's identifiable.

What about those people that host things bagging a company?
i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)? They don't seem to be stopped.. if a lawyer
writes to them and insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken off the
'net (or moved) with nothing done to the creators unless it remains online.

> > Obviously I can see what you are saying and I agree with you to a certain degree - that's half
> > the reason I've not made the site - but isn't it actually within my rights to do so?
>
> Only if you do it in a verifiable way, I would think. Otherwise, your right to swing your arms
> ends at the tip of someone else's nose.

So you can defame someone legally if they are there with you to defend themselves?? I thought it was
defamation regardless?

If people can post rego numbers here saying "nearly ran me over" etc. then what's stopping them
posting these details to another forum, say www.idiotdrivernearlyfugginkilledme.com ?? There has to
be massive amounts of defamation happening on the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any
different? People bag this bike company and that bike company... People insult each other... etc. I
just don't see why this would be different - the driver of a noted vehicle could get on the site and
post a reply. This means they can defend themselves - so does the site become viable then?

> I think license plates can identify drivers. If not by name, then certainly by sight; the biggest
> problem is that the accused wouldn't
be

A driver can simply claim they weren't driving. It's not a direct "Joe Bloggs, 27 Evergreen
Terrace". Someone would have to do a fair amount of digging to even produce some 'possible' drivers.

> able to defend him/herself easily. The Internet can be a powerful weapon, but it needs to be
> handled responsibly.

This one above is real, btw... check it this example post:

<quote> Rumor has it around 180 E*Trade mortgage workers were told today to pack their **** and trek
to a nearby hotel, where they were summarily dismissed. When: 8/28/2003 <unquote>

They posted a "rumour" about a company. You can also search it for names of individuals.

> > I still don't see why rocket-propelled grenades are not fitted as standard equipment to
> > bikes...is is manufacturing costs? What?
>
> Too much collateral damage.

With some refinements - shaped charges, armour piercing, etc, surely they'd be useful? ;-)

hippy

 

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> What about those people that host things bagging a company?
> i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)? They don't seem to be stopped..

"Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between someone expressing an opinion, and
someone maliciously slandering a company or individual.

> if a lawyer writes to them and insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken
> off the 'net (or moved) with nothing done to the creators unless it remains online.

True, unless the lawyer seeks damages or such.

> So you can defame someone legally if they are there with you to defend themselves?? I thought it
> was defamation regardless?

Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and hopefully you'll have evidence
for this, but defamation is something different. Defamation is "the wrong of maliciously injuring
the good name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a right of anyone, and it
doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue you.

By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're engaging in slander, or wrongly
attacking the reputation of another. An accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to
not be defamation.

> If people can post rego numbers here saying "nearly ran me over" etc. then what's stopping them
> posting these details to another forum, say www.idiotdrivernearlyfugginkilledme.com ?? There has
> to be massive amounts of defamation happening on the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any
> different? People bag this bike company and that bike company... People insult each other... etc.
> I just don't see why this would be different - the driver of a noted vehicle could get on the site
> and post a reply. This means they can defend themselves - so does the site become viable then?

Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right in doing so yourself. This
kind of argument won't wash well in court.

Since I'm no lawyer, all of these are my speculations. If you're really interested in putting up
such a site, you might do well to consult someone versed in such matters of the law.

 

[Trevor S]

Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote in news:[email protected]:

<snip>

>
> Having the contributors to such a website truly identified will discourage maliciousness to a
> great extent. However, it's still one's word against another,

Agreed, the disclaimer is, the definition of what is considered notable in this instance lies solely
with the publisher

> except that the other doesn't have an easy way to refute the accusation unless it's allowed for on
> the site. It can then become an argument forum;

Certainly the right of rebuttal would be allowed but probably would not be published unless it was a
genuine case of error.

"Yes. I didn't give way and nearly ran you over but my Mum was feeling poorly " is not a suitable
defence. Actually thinking about it, nothing is a suitable "defence" as there is no claim made for
vindication or of determining right from wrong, it is simply a documentation of an incident, with
all the discrimination inherent in that.

i.e. while cycling between X and Y, vehicle XYZ with license plate XYZ failed to Stop and passed
through the intersection, forcing me to mount the kerb to avoid an accident"

is no different from "Vehicle XYZ with license XYZ was seen pulling up at a stop sign, giving way
correctly and the proceeding on"

It's only in Court where there is redress for punitive damages, be they incarceration or monetary,
where this becomes an issue IMO.

--
Trevor S

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein

 

[Jose Rizal]

Trevor S:

> Actually thinking about it, nothing is a suitable "defence" as there is no claim made for
> vindication or of determining right from wrong, it is simply a documentation of an incident, with
> all the discrimination inherent in that.
> i.e. while cycling between X and Y, vehicle XYZ with license plate XYZ failed to Stop and passed
> through the intersection, forcing me to mount the kerb to avoid an accident"

That's open to interpretation; if the driver's opinion is that you were the one who failed to stop
and your swerving on the kerb to avoid a collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating
him/herself of any wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his, in the eyes of your
website's readers? In the absence of a legal moderator to declare your account as the accurate one
in the absolute sense, you can be accused of defamation.

> is no different from "Vehicle XYZ with license XYZ was seen pulling up at a stop sign, giving way
> correctly and the proceeding on"

The difference is that this latter is complimentary to the driver, while the former is not.

> It's only in Court where there is redress for punitive damages, be they incarceration or monetary,
> where this becomes an issue IMO.

It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their license plates and accused of
wrongdoing.

 

[Hippy]

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > What about those people that host things bagging a company?
> > i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)? They don't seem to be stopped..
>
> "Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between
someone
> expressing an opinion, and someone maliciously slandering a company or individual.

What if my opinion is that person X just tried to run me over?

> > insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken off the 'net (or moved) with
> > nothing done to the creators unless it remains online.
>
> True, unless the lawyer seeks damages or such.

How often does this happen though, I wonder?

> Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and hopefully you'll have evidence
> for this, but defamation is something different. Defamation is "the wrong of maliciously injuring
> the good name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a right of anyone, and
> it doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue you.

Well if I've got the right to accuse someone of evildoing - why can't this be in the form of a
paragraph or two on a website?

If the information on this website just listed the events that took

s&%# and nearly killed me!" that's not maliciously injuring the good name of someone. It is just
explaining an event that occured in my life and what I saw - surely there is nothing wrong with
that? Lots of people have blogs online that would mention "some pri^& in a blue toyota camry backed
over my gnome this morning!!" and I've not heard of action taken against blog writers. Of course
that doesn't mean it's never happened but I still don't see how it could be illegal to write about
something that I experienced.

> By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're engaging in slander, or
> wrongly attacking the reputation of another.
An
> accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to not be defamation.

Okay I'm not up to scratch on the legal terms but why couldn't I say "car ABC-123 cut me off after
performing an illegal u-turn on suchandsuch rd."? The evidence would be my vision. Isn't that why
they get "witnesses" into court rooms?

> > There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on the 'net ALL the time.. why would
> > this be any different? People bag this bike company and that bike company... People insult each
> > other... etc.
>
> Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right
in
> doing so yourself. This kind of argument won't wash well in court.

That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in the wrong" if I typed a story
of my biking life, including details of cars that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's
not without evidence. The drivers could retort. Where is the illegality?

> Since I'm no lawyer, all of these are my speculations. If you're
really
> interested in putting up such a site, you might do well to consult someone versed in such matters
> of the law.

Maybe I sounded I little too enthusiastic? I'm not "really interested" but I always wondered about
the possibility of this type of site. I collect the details of idiotic drivers just in case they do
it again and the rego rings a bell or I see them and can approach them explaining what they did
wrong, etc.

hippy Proprietor: www.fsckheaddrivers.com ;-)

 

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> "Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between
> someone
> > expressing an opinion, and someone maliciously slandering a company or individual.
>
> What if my opinion is that person X just tried to run me over?

I think it might be prudent to put yourself in the other person's shoes to get a feel for what it
would be like. If a motorist puts up a website, and published details of your bike, equipment, and
times you ride through a commuting route, along with all sorts of accusations eg "be aware of
cyclist on blue Giant NRS, red helmet, green messenger bag, rides along Smith St heading south
between 5-5:30pm weekdays, runs through red lights, scares little children, abuses the elderly,
flashes shoppers, abducts pets, and oppresses several African countries...". If your friends
recognise you from this description and you feel you're being harshly judged by this someone whom
you don't even know, how would you like to be able to resolve the situation?

> > Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and hopefully you'll have
> > evidence for this, but defamation is something different. Defamation is "the wrong of
> > maliciously injuring the good name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a
> > right of anyone, and it doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue you.
>
> Well if I've got the right to accuse someone of evildoing - why can't this be in the form of a
> paragraph or two on a website?

I think you'll run into trouble once you start to specifically identify people.

> If the information on this website just listed the events that took

> s&%# and nearly killed me!" that's not maliciously injuring the good name of someone.

A car license plate is enough information to identify someone. Neighbours, friends, and
relatives may readily recognise the plate number. That's when people will start to take issue
with you, I'm sure.

> It is just explaining an event that occured in my life and what I saw - surely there is nothing
> wrong with that?

That's different to what you were suggesting though, of a database of car plates of people who have
done you wrong.

> Lots of people have blogs online that would mention "some pri^& in a blue toyota camry backed over
> my gnome this morning!!" and I've not heard of action taken against blog writers. Of course that
> doesn't mean it's never happened but I still don't see how it could be illegal to write about
> something that I experienced.

That's because each driver of blue Toyota Camrys don't know if it's them who's being maligned. A
"blue Toyota Camry" is general enough of a description of a car as to be almost anonymous. Car
license plates are much more specific.

> > By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're engaging in slander, or
> > wrongly attacking the reputation of another.
> An
> > accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to not be defamation.
>
> Okay I'm not up to scratch on the legal terms but why couldn't I say "car ABC-123 cut me off after
> performing an illegal u-turn on suchandsuch rd."? The evidence would be my vision. Isn't that why
> they get "witnesses" into court rooms?

That's still just your word against the other person's, and who will be the mediator who will
determine whether you are telling the truth or not? Therefore, who is to prove you're not just
slandering someone baselessly? Following this, you're then open to a defamation suit.

> > > There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on the 'net ALL the time.. why would
> > > this be any different? People bag this bike company and that bike company... People insult
> > > each other... etc.
> >
> > Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right
> in
> > doing so yourself. This kind of argument won't wash well in court.
>
> That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in the wrong" if I typed a story
> of my biking life, including details of cars that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's
> not without evidence. The drivers could retort. Where is the illegality?

Your contention that they broke the law, and the implication that these people are wrongdoers, all
backed up only by your word can constitute a basis for a defamation claim against you.

 

[Trevor S]

Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote in news:[email protected]:

<snip>

> That's open to interpretation;

Of course it is.

> if the driver's opinion is that you were the one who failed to stop

Then they should set up a web site and note that:

> and your swerving on the kerb to avoid a collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating
> him/herself of any wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his,

You seem to be wanting to assign credibility at a whim. Neither is credible, credability (for what
it is worth) needs to be earned in this instance.

> in the eyes of your website's readers? In the absence of a legal moderator to declare your account
> as the accurate one in the absolute sense, you can be accused of defamation.

You don't need a legal moderator to determine accuracy (except under the law, which has nothing to
do with what we are discussing), e.g. something can be legally accurate but not representative of
what happened. How can they possibly determine the "accuracy" of an incident ? Even an independent
witness can't determine accuracy, all they can do is recount to the best of their ability what they
witnessed. The best you can say is that you accurately recounted your interpretation of what you
witnessed.

> The difference is that this latter is complimentary to the driver, while the former is not.

Says you, _you_ have made a moral judgement.... what I wrote was amoral.

> It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their license plates and accused
> of wrongdoing.

That is misleading.

--
Trevor S

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Ahhh, here's a fresh one for your collection.
>
> 4.01pm, Thursday arvo, August 28th 2003 Ped light crossing, Lennox & Bridge Road, Richmond. Peds
> have green light on Lennox, small silver plastic bubble car, rego number SIB 003, turns out of
> Bridge, speeding, almost collects several people walking across road. PBC unfortunately too
> nimble for me to get model details, or give it a playful slap with one's steel capped
> Blunnies. grrrrrrrrr.......
>
>
>
> --
> it's all a creeping beige conspiracy
>
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com

Geez, these guys are nearly as bad as some of the pedal courriers !! Mebbe we could use the proposed
site to dob them in as well ??

--
Regards ............... Rheilly Phoull

 

[Jose Rizal]

Trevor S:

> Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > and your swerving on the kerb to avoid a collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating
> > him/herself of any wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his,
>
> You seem to be wanting to assign credibility at a whim.

No, and that's juts the point: when you put up a website and accuse people, you are assigning
credibility to yourself. In the absolute picture, that is on a whim because you're asking people to
take your word for it.

> Neither is credible, credability (for what it is worth) needs to be earned in this instance.

And how do you do that? Certainly not on a personal website which only relies on your word and a
presumption of honesty on your part, regardless of whether your account is accurate or not. Your
accused can always have an opposite point of view which is just as credible as yours in the eyes
of others, until either account is proven to be less accurate than the other. This needs to be
done in the interests of fairness, and to minimise the potential for abuse of such a website. Who
will do that?

> You don't need a legal moderator to determine accuracy (except under the law, which has nothing to
> do with what we are discussing), e.g. something can be legally accurate but not representative of
> what happened.

But this is where it can potentially be headed, in the law courts, if someone takes issue with your
account and accusations. This is a significant issue which you need to look at in putting up a
website of wrongdoers.

> How can they possibly determine the "accuracy" of an incident ? Even an independent witness can't
> determine accuracy, all they can do is recount to the best of their ability what they witnessed.
> The best you can say is that you accurately recounted your interpretation of what you witnessed.

You'll find then that your account is subject to scrutiny and question, something which is not
obvious on a personal website which only contains your version of events. This is what can lead to
claims of defamation against you.

> > The difference is that this latter is complimentary to the driver, while the former is not.
>
> Says you, _you_ have made a moral judgement.... what I wrote was amoral.

If you look back on what you have written, one was an accusation of wrongdoing, and the other
example was an account of following the law. It's obvious that when placed side by side, the latter
is complimentary.

> > It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their license plates and
> > accused of wrongdoing.
>
> That is misleading.

If I have a website which accuses you of evil deeds, with your license plate number and car
description, I'm sure you can sue me for defamation. Where is the misleading bit there? Whether a
court will take it seriously enough obviously depends on the severity of the accusations and
perceived damage to you, but these are beside the main point.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Hippy, one thing you should think about, is do you really think it will achieve anything? At best
the car drivers won't give a **** that they have offended a cyclist, at worst it may encourage the
hoon element to get their names on the board.

I must side with Jose on this one, it starts us down the slippery slope of having East German
scenario where everyone is reporting on everyone else. I can just imagine how many lists I could
be named on.

- Luther

 

[Hippy]

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> That's open to interpretation; if the driver's opinion is that you
were
> the one who failed to stop and your swerving on the kerb to avoid a collision is all your fault,
> therefore exonerating him/herself of any wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than
> his, in the eyes of your website's readers? In the absence of a legal moderator
to
> declare your account as the accurate one in the absolute sense, you
can
> be accused of defamation.

Oh, okay, I think I get it now. The moderator needs to be present when the claim of wrongdoing is
made, right? Therefore, any claims made on this website could be defaming due to the lack of a
moderating power, right?

> It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their license plates and accused
> of wrongdoing.

What if 5/6ths of the plate was identified along with details of the car?

hippy

 

[Hippy]

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I think it might be prudent to put yourself in the other person's
shoes
> to get a feel for what it would be like. If a motorist puts up a
<snip>
> your friends recognise you from this description and you feel you're being harshly judged by this
> someone whom you don't even know, how
would
> you like to be able to resolve the situation?

Post a reply on their board?

It's more clear to me now what you mean and I see the flaw with this idea. But, if you dish it out,
you've got to be able to take it too. Personally, however, I doubt that a motorist could upset me
more by posting my details online rather than nearly killing me. I'd rather see my name on some
bike-hate site than in an obituary column...

> I think you'll run into trouble once you start to specifically
identify
> people.

What about just providing LOTS of details about their actions without specific identification?

> A car license plate is enough information to identify someone. Neighbours, friends, and relatives
> may readily recognise the plate number. That's when people will start to take issue with you, I'm
sure.

Yes. But they will take issue with the dodgy driver first and that might be enough to prompt a
change in their driving habits. One of those free online forum packages could be used to preserve
the author's anonymity. Of course, now I can't create one because I'd be know

> > It is just explaining an event that occured in my life and what I saw - surely there is nothing
> > wrong with that?
>
> That's different to what you were suggesting though, of a database of car plates of people who
> have done you wrong.

Okay, well now I'm suggesting a database of 'life events' that happen to contain the license plates
of those involved.

> That's because each driver of blue Toyota Camrys don't know if it's
them
> who's being maligned. A "blue Toyota Camry" is general enough of a description of a car as to be
> almost anonymous. Car license plates
are
> much more specific.

So, if the description didn't contain a number plate it'd be alright?

> That's still just your word against the other person's, and who will
be
> the mediator who will determine whether you are telling the truth or not? Therefore, who is to
> prove you're not just slandering someone baselessly? Following this, you're then open to a
> defamation suit.

Well if someone takes me to court for defamation then it will be the judge that will act as the
mediator and it will again come down to their word against mine. If it doesn't go to court then I've
nothing to worry about.

> > That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in
the
> > wrong" if I typed a story of my biking life, including details of
cars
> > that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's not without evidence. The drivers could
> > retort. Where is the illegality?
>
> Your contention that they broke the law, and the implication that
these
> people are wrongdoers, all backed up only by your word can constitute
a
> basis for a defamation claim against you.

So, in court, how will they decide who to prosecute? Do they bust the driver because he/she broke
the law (according to my word) or do they bust me for defamation, even though it's just their word
against mine that this event didn't occur?

hippy confuzzed as ever

 

[Hippy]

"Luther Blissett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hippy, one thing you should think about, is do you really think it
will
> achieve anything? At best the car drivers won't give a **** that they have offended a cyclist, at
> worst it may encourage the hoon element to get their names on the board.

Yeah, there does seem to be more negatives than positives with this idea. I'm sure it would make me
(and probably others) feel better after a close call but it's not worth the associated junk that it
would cause. Retired.

Now, about fitting ground-to-ground rockets to the commuter...?

hippy ;-)

 

[Peter Cremasco]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:09:32 GMT, "hippy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Well if someone takes me to court for defamation then it will be the judge that will act as the
>mediator and it will again come down to their word against mine. If it doesn't go to court then
>I've nothing to worry about.

You can still be sued even if the stuff you are saying and writing is true.

>So, in court, how will they decide who to prosecute? Do they bust the driver because he/she broke
>the law (according to my word) or do they bust me for defamation, even though it's just their word
>against mine that this event didn't occur?

Suing is a civil court matter. If you're in court to answer a slander/libel suit, that is the only
thing being judged.

Dangerous driving etc is something that goes to (correct me if I'm wrong) a criminal court.

---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]