Laissez Faire Libel?, How about a "Report" function?

I would like to suggest to the administrators of this forum that a function to report abusive feedback be installed. It is inconceivable to me that comments that clearly come under the LEGAL DEFINITION of libel are allowed upon this forum.

I have far more important concerns than swatting at relative gnats, meaning it doesn't bother me, but I see how it bothers others and that bothers me immensely.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
definition of libel
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/libel

Kindest Regards,
Raphie Frank

P.S. Thank you NOM, for helping me prove my point. Much appreciated...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=feedback&mid=17285

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 2 2007, 07:11 AM

I don't see it. The most inflammatory of the positive and negative feedbacks are opinions and stated desires. You have not been libeled so much as reviewed. Some of the negative reviews are rather vulgar, but you made the choice to associate with this board.

The only potentially factual claim the negative feedback posts said about you is calling you StevenA. Depending on how close your viewpoints and style correspond with this "StevenA" you may choose to view that as a compliment (unless you are "StevenA" and then, under at least two viable paths, your feelings about the derogatory nature of the posts are mooted).

I would also to point out that Merriam-Webster Dictionary is not even incidentally related to the "legal definition of libel." For example, I wrote this response to someone who tried to intimidate me with empty threats of legal action:

I don't know you. I don't care about you. I don't care what other people think about you. But I don't like it when you distort physics facts.

If it's true, it is neither "slander" nor "libel" -- it may be an ad hominem attack.
If I shout it out in Hyde Park, and its false and it damages you in some way then it might be "slander" but certainly not "libel."
If I printed it in the newspaper and it was not true, it might be "libel" but it would not be "slander."
Also, the courts in the USA and Great Britain have long seen the need for frank and heated debate in the sciences as a beneficial thing. Because of this, you would certainly find it hard to find representation if I were to hypothetically call you a "pinch-faced blow-hard and particularly retarded example of a baboon."
Also, I never did such.

The law is not mathematics and you need to know a lot more than the "definition" of something before you can act as your own lawyer. I thank you for inviting me to comment on this subject.

The whole, very funny post.

And opinions formed in review of someone's writing are extensively allowed under this principle of Fair Comment.

More comments on Terry Giblin's threats to sue

And back to Merriam-Webster:

Response to Zephir: "Is this rude? Yes, but it saves time, and not all of us are going to live forever. "

This post has been edited by rpenner on Nov 2 2007, 07:50 AM

Raphie Wank,

So where does a picture of a Gnome fit into your definition of libel?

Hmm, fun stuff! So look, to ease any "tension," let me first make eminently clear that the LAST thing on my mind is any sort of legal action. That's not the point. The issue here is one of basic discourse and civility and how we ensure the same standards of free and open debate online that we do offline in a world going ever more digital.

In any case, here's the basic "bland" definition of libel... LEGALLY, which clearly would vary from state to state, if not country to country, from nolo...

=========================
definition - libel
from nolo
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/76...E0D93B952DE16E7

An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

=========================

Hmmm... if we refer to my feedback specifically, have there been any untruthful statements? Well, that's got to be broken down...

a) As for the gnome of NOM and his FU, I would have to backtrack, that indeed is REVIEW and opinion. Fair enough... even if, albeit somewhat vulgar and conducive to "mobbing" behaviors. But that's a fair statement in a general sense, even if one might expect the administrators to follow basic common sense regarding unwarranted harrassment, harassment that in particular, serves to stifle the introduction of new ideas, particularly for those less confident than perhaps I am...

As for statements, not of identity theft, but identity "duplicity?" This is NOT review, nor opinion, but a clear statement upon character, implying deception, which is clearly related to one's "reputation or standing in the community;" and it is particularly harmful to one actually going by one's real identity online.

It's actually a very interesting question, because in order to PROVE libel, the libeler must know at the time that he or she was making false statements, in this case something very easy to prove AFTER the fact, but quite difficult to prove at the time (if one presupposes the false label of "sockpuppet" just for the sake of argument...)

So does this mean we cede our online public forums to the inane and ignorant and unthinking? To the hurtful? To those who can say afterwards "I didn't know"? Does this not perchance help to create a culture where it is BETTER TO BE ANONYMOUS and DUMB?

And then one can do whatever the heck-all one wants???

I am not sure I have the answer to be truthful, but this much I do know:

The administrators of this forum have the ability to arbitrate in such issues because they have computer logs at the very least, and -- only opinion here -- an obligation in the interests of a Usable Web (which can translate to "Knowledge Webs", as well...) to make it easy (see "Don't Make Me Think!" by Steve Krug) for those being attacked to request a fair hearing in such matters. Furthermore, the community as an entirety, I believe, would do well, to take it upon itself to "monitor out" by common consent ad hominem argumentation without respect to any given member's agreement or disagreement with an individual poster's position...

To sum up, I am going to have to backtrack on legality issues because I don't think the case law when it comes to online is in place yet -- although it is yet another worthwhile question asking -- but I yet believe this forum would benefit from the ability to report abusive feedback in similar manner to the way one can report abusive posts. It seems like basic common sense to me.

After all, are we not here to learn and to teach? At the very least, it seems to me that this should be a basic guiding principle that shapes all else.

Best Regards and thanks for the smart feedback,
Raphie

P.S. More perhaps after I've reviewed properly whatever terms and conditions govern the workings of this forum. I do not wish to overreach without sufficient information. But, in general, I simply wished to bring the issue into the fore so that the administrators might be aware that it is an issue... Best, Raphie

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 2 2007, 09:47 AM

While calling you "StevenA" might hurt your feelings, that's a long way from showing that calling you "StevenA" on this forum would "[cause] a reasonable person to think worse of [you]."

StevenA is hardly Adolph Hitler.

Dear RPenner,

Ah, yes, key word: "Reasonable." I am not convinced we are living in reasonable times regarding intellectual freedom as per some of my comments on this board regarding the arXIV Cornell archives.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=18909

But that's not the point here on this thread, although I do view this as somewhat of a microcosm of something larger and systemic...

... and the fact is, I would actually be proud to be associated with StevenA. Adolph Hitler he is not indeed! I believe him to be a highly original, even if as yet unformed thinker with a highly developed conscience and sense of fairplay.

But to say that he and I are one, effectively steals either he or I of an identity. Given that StevenA has controversial notions, and has been subject to a fair amount of abuse (as well as support, I might add) within this forum, and/or risks being mocked offline for his ideas (we simply don't know), I would not suggest that he post under his true identity unless he felt comfortable with it.

Do you not think if we had a bit more of a civil environment, fewer might feel the need to "hide" behind online pseudonyms? You are Googlable, as am I, but we each have a bit more cultural capital -- I as a writer with a bit of a socially active pen and you as a Professor -- than the "average Joe."

Just a thought...

Kindest Regards,
Raphie

P.S. Little things can add up to a lot, as Malcolm Gladwell made rather clear in his book "The Tipping Point," highly worth a read. The concept applies no less so to mobbing behaviors, not unrelated in tangential form to this conversation...

from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing

Mobbing

In the book MOBBING: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, the authors claim that mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organized production and/or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually "exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication".[1]:

Though the English word mob denotes a crowd, often in a destructive or hostile mood, the German and several other European languages have adopted mobbing as a loanword to describe all forms of bullying including that by single persons. The resultant German verb mobben can also be used for physical attacks, calumny against schoolteachers on the internet and intimidation by superiors, with an emphasis on the victims' continuous fear rather than the perpetrators' will to exclude them...

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 2 2007, 08:37 PM

Even if the derogatory statements are true some courts allow civil litigation against the publisher. If the target of the statements is not a public figure and the publishing of the facts serves no purpose other than to harm the individual concerned, it might constitute a civilly recoverable action.

And in addition to this, the PhysOrg Forums people are not traditional publishers. Where's the editorial policy? Where's the evidence that they even read these posts without explicit requests to review?

Dear RPenner,

"Where's the evidence that they even read these posts without explicit requests to review?"

You've just hit the nail on the head. There is no easy mechanism in place to report abusive feedback, which was the initial purpose of posting this thread [EDIT: AND I BACKTRACK on the issue of legality, just to be clear...]. Which halls of justice are we making our case to?

This is not a legal issue. Physorg is an educational leader and I ASSUME the good intent of those who run it. That's an a priori for me.

You've got to make it EASY for people to make the "request for review"

BECAUSE MANY OF THE BEST AMONGST US ARE AFRAID, RPenner.

Just do a search for Ana Crisan on Google, a very gifted young woman (in an artistic manner) who fights with her camera and against her fear to bring to light hidden populations. I actually don't even agree with many of her specific views, but she is still one of my heroes because she does at 24 what it took me almost 15 years longer to start doing.

---------------------
CONTEXTUAL LINK
---------------------
One of My Heroes :: Ana Crisan (photographer, “homeful” and animal rights activist)
http://raphie.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/one...ne-of-my-heroe/

She is unique in exposing herself, but I PROMISE YOU, she is not unique in the challenges she confronts because, as per a point I have made previously, I know many people like her by name and they come in all shapes and forms and sizes.

Best,
Raphie

P.S. Regarding "Cognitive Physics," Ana is one example of "potential energy" becoming realized... just think paradigmatically and/or heuristically. The concepts of math and physics can be applied to social constructs. JMHO.

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 3 2007, 03:38 AM

Defamation is pretty tough to prove:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable

And, My favorite:
Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff

In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous

Simple problem the Admins and Moderators are not Justices - Judges and do not exercise legal authority in that manner.

But a report response would be helpful as to know just what is reportable and what is not worthwhile reporting upon.

Defamatory libels are something that should not be allowed to stand, or should be marked and indicated as complained of as such, especially when it is Blatantly obvious as was-is PuckSR's (et al) past Libeling of me.

Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff

Makes it clear one can say whatever they please about (It). (without being abusive, of course) Have at it folks.

Just a bit different then the claimants position was rendered as such by the activities of a stalking group hence claim VERY WELL JUSTIFIED!

Asides from that "in the community" where is that? you think just here - physorg - but you are quite wrong as the damage you do to me is in appearance to everyone living in Canada - et al - as (I) am a part of Canadian History - Canadian Legal History....

BTW Counseling to commit a crime makes you - the counselor of such - guilty of the crime whether the crime gets committed or not

Say bye big guy?

Simply as a follow up... I suggest any and all take a look at...

1) the quality of my postings

2) the -7 feedback

... and compare the two with an eye to thinking about what we as a society "do" to those with new and innovative approaches.

Happy Thanksgiving and to one and all a merry good night!

Kindest Regards,
Raphie

P.S, I am, as NOM the mental gnome might proclaim, a proud recipient of that -7 feedback score. Ah! You got me! I just stooped to the ad hominem argument. NOM, I might add, is anything but a gnome mentally. Just a bit "young" and anarchistic. I still appreciate his comments when first I joined this forum back in March...

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 23 2007, 09:54 AM

@Raphie

I see pretty close correlation between your demonstrated knowledge of science (in your posts, which i reviewed) and your feedback score.

If feedback was based on quality of cut-and-paste, quality of prose, careful consideration, number of non-sequitor links, or attempts to appear knowledgeable by use of buzzwords, or the eloquent presentation of pseudo-science then I think you would score much much better. But, hey, I could be wrong.