.. playing devils advocate here...
ok let's say we are talking about US jurisdiction (BTW details now will vary depending on state). Still a party alleging libel would only need to show that:
1. A statement was published and read by someone (easy)
2. A statement was damaging (not too difficult)
3. A statement was not truthful. (depends on the case)
I only tldr;ed bitmoles thread which could be used as an example. Basically he would just need to convince a court that delaying payment for some time is not equivalent of being a scammer. Than customer has published allegedly libellous statements and bitmole did not pay after that since he had a legal case and reasonable claim to do a "set off" i.e. that having a disagreement with a customer is not necessary a fraud.
I do not know if any of this is what happened, or who is right and who is wrong there (did not ever read much of that thread).
My point is that by taking sides in conflicts like that site administration is taking unnecessary legal risks. However good you are, sooner or later some mistakes will be made. Now let's imagine for a moment that in a year or two one bitcoin worth 1k£. Then lawsuits will fly and lawyers will have a field day at your expense.
In the end of the day, operator of the website is the one who makes the decision. I just advise some caution here (and not taking legal advise from BBC's articles or myself for this matter).
IANAL anyway.
Topic: Re: Start a Bitcoin Court (Read 769 times)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10940211:
Quote
In the UK defendants must prove statements are true, whereas in the US claimants have to prove they are false.
Quote
US libel laws include the so-called Sullivan defence, in which the claimant must prove malice or serious recklessness before the case proceeds to the courts.
theymos, I do not think this scammer mark is such a good idea. This makes operators of the forum VERY vulnerable to real world libel lawsuits. I strongly suggest to reconsider this practice. Better stay away from this.
I think he'd need to prove that he has never scammed someone in his life, which is almost impossible.
You are wrong. The party accused of libel would have to prove that he is a scammer. Proof of truthfulness of a statement is a great defence in a libel case. However burden of proof lies with the party which is accused of libel. This of course varies in details depending on jurisdiction but generally this is the case. Libel litigation is quite a can of worms and due to general bias in favour claimants/plaintiffs and difficulty of defending such cases there are plenty of legal sharks doing libel cases pro bono.
Moreover, a simple letter to host's ISP with libel accusation will promptly generate some action which would force either prompt removal of allegedly libelling statement from a website or it's shut-down (ISPs generally have a better grasp on relevant law than "he'd need to prove that he has never scammed someone in his life").
I personally would chose to stay away from all this and keep neutral position in all those disputes. Much safer that way.
theymos, I do not think this scammer mark is such a good idea. This makes operators of the forum VERY vulnerable to real world libel lawsuits. I strongly suggest to reconsider this practice. Better stay away from this.
I think he'd need to prove that he has never scammed someone in his life, which is almost impossible.
theymos, I do not think this scammer mark is such a good idea. This makes operators of the forum VERY vulnerable to real world libel lawsuits. I strongly suggest to reconsider this practice. Better stay away from this.
Jump to: