legal status of www.ratemyteachers.com

[Ext User(Lispo)]

I understand that there have been unsuccessful legal challenges against this
site but it just seems wrong that people can anonymously review/slander
teachers.

On the site forum one of the "Admins" stated that it would be OK to write
about a teacher: "I think XXX likes small boys".

http://forums.ratemyteachers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5923

Reviews like this (and worse) appear regularly on the site because the
moderation system is flawed. How on earth can they get away with it??

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Lispo <bling@purpleheart.com> wrote

> I understand that there have been unsuccessful legal challenges against this
> site but it just seems wrong that people can anonymously review/slander
> teachers.

Like it or lump it.

> On the site forum one of the "Admins" stated that it would be OK to write
> about a teacher: "I think XXX likes small boys".

> http://forums.ratemyteachers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5923

> Reviews like this (and worse) appear regularly on the site because the
> moderation system is flawed. How on earth can they get away with it??

It isnt practical to do anything about it, stupid.

[Ext User(MrFlibble)]

In article <dgqgtk$ep2$1@online.de>, Lispo <bling@purpleheart.com>
wrote:

> I understand that there have been unsuccessful legal challenges against this
> site but it just seems wrong that people can anonymously review/slander
> teachers.
>

A search of lexis nexis unreported cases doesn't give me any hits about
the website. So I don't think there have been any legal challenges that
have made it to court.

> Reviews like this (and worse) appear regularly on the site because the
> moderation system is flawed. How on earth can they get away with it??

Because defamation action is one of the most expensive forms. If you'd
like to sue them about something they've said about you by all means
mortgage your house (although on a teachers salary I'd be suprised
you'd have one) and go for it.

[Ext User(Cartman)]

Lispo wrote:
> I understand that there have been unsuccessful legal challenges against this
> site but it just seems wrong that people can anonymously review/slander
> teachers.
>
> On the site forum one of the "Admins" stated that it would be OK to write
> about a teacher: "I think XXX likes small boys".
>
> http://forums.ratemyteachers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5923
>
> Reviews like this (and worse) appear regularly on the site because the
> moderation system is flawed. How on earth can they get away with it??
>
>
I am not a legal expert but am an IT expert with an interest in law,
here is my view from an technical perspective.
1) The internet is not anonymous, there would be logs on that site of
who has done what. With that site IN PARTICULAR, the forum software
being used (phpBB) records the IP address of every post made.
2) Even if they were using an anonymous proxy, the anonymous proxy
RECORDs the IP addresses as well as the page requested. Generally if you
inform an anonymisation service that their service is being used for
libel they will generally act to stop it (for fear of being sued themselves)
3) 1 & 2 become a problem if the person making the claims are using a
library or school computer.
4) The site itself can be sued for publishing the information. Such
legal action could also request the IP addresses of the posters so that
they can persue action against them AS WELL.
5) The person whose name appears on the internet bill would be liable as
the IP address would be associated with them.

Again, such action is hard and expensive to take. If there were genuine
concerns, a class action could be the go against the site itself.

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:48:31 +1000, Cartman proclaimed:

> The site itself can be sued for publishing the information.

What about Usenet? Who is ultimately responsible for such posts - each
and every individual server? Assume that the originating ip cannot be
found...


--
/J/
Stuffing around with the web cam again:
http://members.ii.net/~iijeebz/ii.jpg

[Ext User(Cartman)]

Jeßus wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:48:31 +1000, Cartman proclaimed:
>
>
>>The site itself can be sued for publishing the information.
>
>
> What about Usenet? Who is ultimately responsible for such posts - each
> and every individual server? Assume that the originating ip cannot be
> found...
>
>
With Usenet the responsibility goes to the owner of the server it was
posted from. The server it is sent from is in effect the "publisher".

It is easy to do with the server discussed as it is web based - it is
clearly "communicating to the public"

[Ext User(MrFlibble)]

In article <43322ceb@quokka.wn.com.au>, Cartman
<magnaboy@nospam.westnet.com.au> wrote:

> With Usenet the responsibility goes to the owner of the server it was
> posted from. The server it is sent from is in effect the "publisher".
>
> It is easy to do with the server discussed as it is web based - it is
> clearly "communicating to the public"

There was a case a few years back where a prominent a british man sued
an Australian for defamation from usenet.

As for the server being the publisher, I don't see that. Unlike
websites where it is argueable that an ISP would be responsible for the
defamation as it is only in one place, usenet works completely
differently in that messages are propogated to thousands of servers.
You might argue that the original posting ISP is the publisher, but I
think you'll find they would be considered a common carrier (much like
a phone company couldn't be sued over a phone conversation).

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:24:09 +0000, MrFlibble proclaimed:

> In article <43322ceb@quokka.wn.com.au>, Cartman
> <magnaboy@nospam.westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> With Usenet the responsibility goes to the owner of the server it was
>> posted from. The server it is sent from is in effect the "publisher".
>>
>> It is easy to do with the server discussed as it is web based - it is
>> clearly "communicating to the public"
>
> There was a case a few years back where a prominent a british man sued
> an Australian for defamation from usenet.

That would be Lawrence Godfrey from memory, well worth looking up for
those interested in such things.

> As for the server being the publisher, I don't see that. Unlike websites
> where it is argueable that an ISP would be responsible for the
> defamation as it is only in one place, usenet works completely
> differently in that messages are propogated to thousands of servers. You
> might argue that the original posting ISP is the publisher, but I think
> you'll find they would be considered a common carrier (much like a phone
> company couldn't be sued over a phone conversation).

iiNet for one doesn't see it that way, or at least Malone cited similar
reasons for removing binary groups from their news server.

--
/J/
Stuffing around with the web cam again:
http://members.ii.net/~iijeebz/ii.jpg

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:59:41 +1000, Cartman proclaimed:

> Jeßus wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:48:31 +1000, Cartman proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>The site itself can be sued for publishing the information.
>>
>>
>> What about Usenet? Who is ultimately responsible for such posts - each
>> and every individual server? Assume that the originating ip cannot be
>> found...
>>
>>
> With Usenet the responsibility goes to the owner of the server it was
> posted from. The server it is sent from is in effect the "publisher".
>
> It is easy to do with the server discussed as it is web based - it is
> clearly "communicating to the public"

Let's hope this type of potential vulnerability is never exploited... it
could mean the end of Usenet as we know it.
I suspect 'they'(insert conspiracy theory of choice here) will find a way
to effectively shut down Usenet eventually.
There's far too much freedom on Usenet for certain types to tolerate, I'm
sure.

--
/J/
Stuffing around with the web cam again:
http://members.ii.net/~iijeebz/ii.jpg

[Ext User(MrFlibble)]

In article <pan.2005.09.23.01.57.12.230290@iijeebz.mac.g4>, Jeßus
<_._@ii.net> wrote:

> iiNet for one doesn't see it that way, or at least Malone cited similar
> reasons for removing binary groups from their news server.

Depends on their legal advice and the technical abilities of that
lawyer really. It's areas like these that get so tricky and until it's
tested in court know one knows which way a judge would go.

Should a usenet server be considered a common carrier? i think so.
Does the news server's ability to filter and be monitered change this
fact? Quite possibly. But it could be argued that the cost of
implementing such action is far beyond what would be reasonable.

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

Jeßus wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:24:09 +0000, MrFlibble proclaimed:
>
> > In article <43322ceb@quokka.wn.com.au>, Cartman
> > <magnaboy@nospam.westnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> With Usenet the responsibility goes to the owner of the server it was
> >> posted from. The server it is sent from is in effect the "publisher".
> >>
> >> It is easy to do with the server discussed as it is web based - it is
> >> clearly "communicating to the public"
> >
> > There was a case a few years back where a prominent a british man sued
> > an Australian for defamation from usenet.
>
> That would be Lawrence Godfrey from memory, well worth looking up for
> those interested in such things.
>
> > As for the server being the publisher, I don't see that. Unlike websites
> > where it is argueable that an ISP would be responsible for the
> > defamation as it is only in one place, usenet works completely
> > differently in that messages are propogated to thousands of servers. You
> > might argue that the original posting ISP is the publisher, but I think
> > you'll find they would be considered a common carrier (much like a phone
> > company couldn't be sued over a phone conversation).
>
> iiNet for one doesn't see it that way, or at least Malone cited similar
> reasons for removing binary groups from their news server.

That is for a different reason - it has to do with pornography issues.

In defamation there is a defence called "innocent publication" - that
is to say, a telegram may be defamatory, but those people forwarding
it are held to have "innocently published" the content as part of what
they do. Similar applies to ISP's and usenet content. Though, if they
have been notified of defamatory content, and they don't remove it (or
try to at least), then they may well no longer be able to use that
defence.

It would be fair to say that Godfrey would not succeed against an ISP
anymore, but would still be able to successfully sue the person
posting a defamatory message.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ext User(mhussey@gmail.com)]

Lispo wrote:

>
> On the site forum one of the "Admins" stated that it would be OK to write
> about a teacher: "I think XXX likes small boys".
>
> http://forums.ratemyteachers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5923
>
> Reviews like this (and worse) appear regularly on the site because the
> moderation system is flawed. How on earth can they get away with it??


This is a flat out LIE.

Please read the RateMyTeachers rating rules before you go out and
spread your filthy mis-information.

http://www.ratemyteachers.com/info.php?type=RateRules