Yes indeed, but the end result is bad enough. Suddenly everybody is watching what they posted under their full name.
And you can be 100% sure that any CAA or NATS guy who joints up will trawl the forum and then look up various names on his pilot database.
Peter wrote:
Yes indeed, but the end result is bad enough. Suddenly everybody is watching what they posted under their full name.And you can be 100% sure that any CAA or NATS guy who joints up will trawl the forum and then look up various names on his pilot database.
Well, I always understood it that it doesn’t matter if you use an alias or a full name – if there is a court order, then the forum would have to comply and disclose the e-mail addresses, IPs etc.
arj1 wrote:
Well, I always understood it that it doesn’t matter if you use an alias or a full name – if there is a court order, then the forum would have to comply and disclose the e-mail addresses, IPs etc.
Yes, but the question is whether they bother to follow up something they don’t like in the context of anonymous posting vs open posting.
Certainly in the UK, people from the CAA read various forums and if/when they find people saying things that are very much off-message then there is sometimes an attempt to engage offline with them, private messaging via the forum, email if displayed, etc. This appears to be something of a freelance operation and I doubt it is CAA policy, although they may have some woolly stuff about community engagement that might be said to cover it.
If someone is posting under an alias and with no personally-identifiable information then the CAA are not going to make any serious effort to establish that person’s identity if they do not respond to a reach out. They’re not going to get a court order so the forum has to hand over details just so they can have a chat with that person, and unless the post contained obvious admission of serious criminal activity the courts would never give them one anyway.
But if you post stuff they don’t like under your real name and ignore or rebuff the reach out, you can be sure they have looked you up on the licensing database and placed you on their sh*tlist, so if you ever find yourself in a regulatory tangle you’ll get no mercy.
Well, I always understood it that it doesn’t matter if you use an alias or a full name – if there is a court order, then the forum would have to comply and disclose the e-mail addresses, IPs etc.
Unless it isn’t in the logs anymore, etc. And many emails don’t show the name. However things can get bad enough to damage a forum without anyone suing.
Graham’s post above is accurate.
I don’t think a prosecution is possible on the basis of a forum post – here.
gallois wrote:
Its very easy to threaten to sue someone if they don’t like what is written.
I’ve a couple of times had veiled (and totally empty, meaningless) threats of libel action for things I’ve written on pilot forums.
The threats have been from people who quite obviously know zero about defamation law in the UK. They seemed totally oblivious of the requirement for a defamatory statement to actually be a false statement of fact that causes serious reputational harm to a named complainant, behaving as though expressing opinions counter to official policy and speculating about motives and vested interested constituted libel. They had probably watched too many courtroom dramas.
So one must moderate – even if one pretends one does not (as is the case in certain GA forums on the mainland – “free speech” marketing is popular there). Then you have to made some hard decisions on policy.
I guess, but the effect of that is a narrowing on the point of view. Hence, forums tend to be populated by equal minded spirits, at least those who write on the forum. It’s also not good for the objectivity in a larger sense as well as honesty.
Other channels work better for most people.
Graham wrote:
If someone is posting under an alias and with no personally-identifiable information then the CAA are not going to make any serious effort to establish that person’s identity if they do not respond to a reach out. They’re not going to get a court order so the forum has to hand over details just so they can have a chat with that person, and unless the post contained obvious admission of serious criminal activity the courts would never give them one anyway.
I think they would if there is a clear indication of some malicious action. Agree to disagree.
Graham wrote:
But if you post stuff they don’t like under your real name and ignore or rebuff the reach out, you can be sure they have looked you up on the licensing database and placed you on their sh*tlist, so if you ever find yourself in a regulatory tangle you’ll get no mercy.
First of all, have you got the confirmation of that sh$%list, for real? I heard from more than one person that it’s myth, and a threat from some grumpy employee.
Plus, all my interactions with the CAA are crap. None of the inquires of applications have worked as intended so far… Even worse?
Graham wrote:
They seemed totally oblivious of the requirement for a defamatory statement to actually be a false statement of fact
That’s the case in the British (common law?) tradition but is not the case everywhere. E.g. in Sweden a true statement can very well be defamatory.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Graham wrote: They seemed totally oblivious of the requirement for a defamatory statement to actually be a false statement of factThat’s the case in the British (common law?) tradition but is not the case everywhere. E.g. in Sweden a true statement can very well be defamatory.
Airborne_Again, how is that possible? If you present some information which is true, then you cannot be held liable, I think that was ECHR decision ages ago…
Airborne_Again wrote:
That’s the case in the British (common law?) tradition but is not the case everywhere. E.g. in Sweden a true statement can very well be defamatory.
Defamation in English law (there is no British law) originates in common law but these days almost everything of relevance is codified in statute.
I’m not 100% sure what you mean. Are you saying that in Swedish law truth is not a defence to defamation? That seems odd.
In any case, English law is generally the global jurisdiction of choice for libel cases – ‘legal tourism’.
