psychos

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But don't a lot of websites only have the author's side of the

story?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't a lot of books?

The difference is that these have identifiable ownership, that is,

book

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

hippy:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

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

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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 😉

Quoted message said:

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

Trevor S:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're engaging in slander, or
wrongly attacking the reputation of another.

An

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Since I'm no lawyer, all of these are my speculations. If you're

really

Quoted message said:

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 ;-)

hippy:

Quoted message said:

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between

someone

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're engaging in slander, or
wrongly attacking the reputation of another.

An

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

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

<snip>

Quoted message said:

That's open to interpretation;

Of course it is.

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

"cfsmtb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com cyclingforums.comcyclingforums.comOpen ↗

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

Trevor S:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

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 [censored] 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

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's open to interpretation; if the driver's opinion is that you

were

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

declare your account as the accurate one in the absolute sense, you

can

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think it might be prudent to put yourself in the other person's

shoes

Quoted message said:

to get a feel for what it would be like. If a motorist puts up a

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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...

Quoted message said:

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

identify

Quoted message said:

people.

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

Quoted message said:

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 :-P

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

That's because each driver of blue Toyota Camrys don't know if it's

them

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

much more specific.

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

Quoted message said:

That's still just your word against the other person's, and who will

be

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong" if I typed a story of my biking life, including details of

cars

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

people are wrongdoers, all backed up only by your word can constitute

a

Quoted message said:

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

"Luther Blissett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hippy, one thing you should think about, is do you really think it

will

Quoted message said:

achieve anything? At best the car drivers won't give a [censored] 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 ;-)

hippy said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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]