English Forum Website in Japan is Being Sued

[AssKissinger]

Get Hiroshima

http://www.gethiroshima.com/

Get Hiroshima included this information in their weekly news letter.

Where those Forums?
Some of our users may have noticed that our Forums are currently offline. We have had some emails asking us what is going on, but all we can say at the moment is that we are facing a large damages claim based on some anonymous postings last summer. We would like to make it clear, however, that this claim is not coming from any of the language schools that have appeared in our forums over the last few months. We know all of this is a bit cryptic, but for the time being this is as far as we think it prudent to go.

[Big Booger]

Fuck em' all. They are all dogshit IMHO.


Forums cannot be held responsible for what users post.. if that were the case, then it would be a major blow to the freeness and openness of the internet...

[Jamie]

Hey AK,

A lot of us were pissed off too about the the forums.
However, because there were no "disclaimers" shown to posters (until early this year), the content becomes the responsibility of the guys running the site. Shitty, I know, but the law is an ass.

How about we start a new GetHiroshima forum here?

[Jamie]

Naaah Ultra, you got yer ass covered.

That's why AK gets away with the stuff he comes out with on FG. WAY ore entertaining than the posts on gethiroshima, and he still plays a mean mandolin. Just an observation from a Hiroshima lurker!

AK - see ya & the Irish Bhoy on the 3rd of July!

[kamome]

Where those Forums?
...all we can say at the moment is that we are facing a large damages claim based on some anonymous postings last summer...

I've never heard of this site, but it's a bit disconcerting to hear that public online forums are getting sued over some anonymous postings that appeared there.

There have been some pretty risky postings on FG that, for example, directly targeted individuals or businesses in the Tokyo community. However, I don't think there is a high likelihood that such posts would create special liability for a forum like FG. I'd be interested in finding out what was said on their forum to expose them to potential lawsuits.

[Steve Bildermann]

Over the past year Japanese courts/lawyers (following California's lead) have begun to recognize the 'online' community. Many Japanese lawyers are pretty savvy about Internet usage.

Some time ago when we had the discussion about public posting I commented that online forums have come to be viewed in two ways.

- As a room in a private house in which 'invited' members are the hosts guests. Others may ask to come in but the host reserves the right to refuse entrance. In this case it's impossible to take legal action for slander or libel. Most private clubs operate in this manner precisely for this reason. The British Houses of Parliament (and the US Congress) are legally a private club with members invited to attend by the 'Speaker' of the house. You can't be sued for anything you say, which if you have ever attended is a damn good thing cos those guys call each other every name under the sun and it's ok as long as it's prefaced by the phrase 'begging the pardon of the Honorable member for....'

- As a public area such as a bar / restaurant etc in which anybody may walk in and take part as long as they obey the 'clearly posted' rules of the house. All laws regarding slander (not libel) apply.

I then said I preferred the latter format because I intensely dislike the 'clubby' type forums where everybody knows each other and an establish hierarchy is enforced.

Spoken as a lifetime/Premium member of the FG community

PS I've been a bit quite over the past week or so cos my brain box has been acting up and I haven't really felt like interacting (it wasn't anything you guys said) Maybe this week will be better.

[Caustic Saint]

Ah, so I guess this case is the reason for the Site Disclaimer.

Makes sense. None of us want to see FG get pulled offline.

[omae mona]

Ah, so I guess this case is the reason for the [url=http://www.fuckedgaijin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=53139#post53139]Site Disclaimer.

I agree there's probably no material on FG that's grounds for any lawsuit, but I've always been worried about what could happen to FG.

I don't know whether the lawsuit on that other board comes from a user or a non-user. But I doubt anything in the FG Site Disclaimer protects FG from angry 3rd parties, even if it does form a contract between FG and its users. It is one thing to say "you and I agree that I am not liable to YOU for any damages". But it's another thing to say "you and I agree that some other guy can't sue me", since the other guy has never been here and didn't agree to this term! Isn't that the case?


I think the thing going in FG's favor is that it is clearly domiciled in the U.S. where the laws are pretty clear. FG has nothing to do with Japan except a lot of its users are in Japan. With no presence in Japan somebody pissed at Ultra would have to get him in the U.S. The thing that really worries me: based on cases I've heard about, Ultra's selective editorial role (e.g. occasionally deleting threads, which I support) might be seen as setting a precedent that FG *does* own the content. Hands-off is a lot safer. Be careful, ultra!!!

IANAL

[Steve Bildermann]

The thing that really worries me: based on cases I've heard about, Ultra's selective editorial role (e.g. occasionally deleting threads, which I support) might be seen as setting a precedent that FG *does* own the content. Hands-off is a lot safer.

Yes. That is a good point. And that point has been used to close down several forums. If the so called operator of the forum does arbitrarily edit content then it can be argued the operator is attempting to gain control over such content. MSN got itself into just such a tussle a couple of years ago. It was also the prime reason for the demise of the Disney sponsored portal GO.COM. One of the ways to obviate such a potential liability is for the operator to appoint a 'ombudsman' who acts as a 'fair broker' between the users and the operator in such matters.

[AssKissinger]

However, because there were no "disclaimers" shown to posters (until early this year), the content becomes the responsibility of the guys running the site. Shitty, I know, but the law is an ass.

How about we start a new GetHiroshima forum here?

How about we not get FG sued and shut down...

Ultra, you definitely took Jamie's post the wrong way. Jamie is the last guy who would do anything to hurt a project like FG. He just means we can make a little Hiroshima contingent here on FG which I think is exactly the kind of thing this site is about. Jamie has done tons to support the Hiroshima gaijin music scene. In fact, I never met another gaijin here to do so much to bring people together and get some good times rolling. I can't say enough for how much he's done for my band in particular. He's exactly the kind of person we need to keep FG going strong.

Hey AK,

A lot of us were pissed off too about the the forums.
However, because there were no "disclaimers" shown to posters (until early this year), the content becomes the responsibility of the guys running the site. Shitty, I know, but the law is an ass.

How about we start a new GetHiroshima forum here?

Jamie, nice to see you posting on FG man!

Naaah Ultra, you got yer ass covered.

That's why AK gets away with the stuff he comes out with on FG. WAY ore entertaining than the posts on gethiroshima, and he still plays a mean mandolin. Just an observation from a Hiroshima lurker!

AK - see ya & the Irish Bhoy on the 3rd of July!

I think some of the threads over on Get Hiroshima were awesome. But because it's such a local scene I think it got pretty damn sticky sometimes. It also seemed like every Hiroshima gaijin read those threads. I'd really like to know who's suing them. I heard a rumor from another GH reg but I don't know. I predict that in five years these kind of boards will be totally dead. Of course real free expression can't last.

[Crambo]

I know I'm only new here, so don't want to get too involved with what seems to be discussion amongst the more seasoned members. However, I'm trying to wrap my head around the situation with the other forum, (using the aforementioned analogy of the bar) has someone walked in to the bar (Get Hiroshima) and abused another patron and then this patron has decided to sue the owner of the bar (operators of Get Hiroshima), or has one particular member of the forum sued another member? If it is the latter option, I can't understand how this would hold up in any legal system, unless one were to argue that owner of the bar provided the existential means for the insult to be exchanged, in which case I've a whole lot of "your mother..." quips to be sorted out.

[Andocrates]

As long as their have been courts the rich have used the legal system to penalize the poor. Weather or not the case will be a victory in court is beside the point, some guy running a free message board most likely can't afford a host of lawyers to defend himself.

[bejiita]

It was also the prime reason for the demise of the Disney sponsored portal GO.COM. One of the ways to obviate such a potential liability is for the operator to appoint a 'ombudsman' who acts as a 'fair broker' between the users and the operator in such matters.

I thought go.com shut down because it was infringing on goto.com's trademark? After paying $21.5 million dollars, Disney revamped its site so that it carried no original content and merely served as a pointer to Disney's other sites.

The thing that really worries me: based on cases I've heard about, Ultra's selective editorial role (e.g. occasionally deleting threads, which I support) might be seen as setting a precedent that FG *does* own the content. Hands-off is a lot safer.

No problem there. Since FG is U.S. based, the CDA allows Ultra to edit to his heart's content. Also, the DMCA allows a site to designate an agent with the U.S. Copyright office to avoid third-party liablity for potential copyright infringment.