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.
Your point is the main problem I forsaw (aside from any legal