Bill by you allowing public to use your BBS you must comply with Public Policy. The public has a lot of rights even in your 100% privately owned BBS. The BBS site will not be what it is if it was not for the public there. You are using the public for your personal satisfaction. They are the most important part, without them your BBS will not be a Bulletin Board.
Users are free to leave it if they do not like your BBS but if you have violated someone's rights that person is in his right to seek redress for aggrieves.
People often confuse public places or semi-public places with their homes. There are many differences under the law for both.
Another thing people don't understand about agreements is that if the agreement is found to have unlawfull terms it will be VOID under the Law. Unlawful agreements are void, certainly an agreement violating public policy is unlawful. Just because you agree to it does not necesarily mean you have to abide by it. For instance if you did not know at the time of the agreement that it was unlawful or under another circumstances even if you know it was unlawful and you agree you are violating the law too. For example if I made an agreement with someone to kill him and he sign it does that give me the right to kill him? (Dr. kaborkian comes to mind)

A privately owned system has every right to do what they please (short of breaking the law) with their own content. AAC is NOT a profit/non-profit organization, corporation, LLC, or business. They do NOT serve the general public and do NOT have to abide by the same "public policies" you've conjured up in your head. They do not have a "physical" location which provides the GENERAL public ACCESS to its facilities, so again -- NO ACCOMMODATIONS! There is no "Public". You don't say "Hey lets go IRL to visit AAC." IT DOES NOT EXIST. I think you need to learn what the term PUBLIC means.

If people don't understand what an agreement means, THEY SHOULD NOT ACCEPT IT. Your accepting of an agreement will NOT hold up in court if you told the judge "Oh well... I didn't understand." That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard! I guess you think such concepts work with LEGAL CONTRACTS as well? "I didn't read the contract and/or didn't understand it." Guess what? You agreed that you understood it. Whose fault is that?

Dr. Kevorkian? This is bringing down the intelligence level of everyone around you. You need to go and RESEARCH laws regarding websites. You also need to learn PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, like READING the RULES.

In short, a private system has to make 0, yes ZERO accommodations for any and everybody. The owner is able to do with his/her website as they see fit. I'm gonna enjoy busting your bubble again. These rights you think you have? They don't exist on someone elses property. Tell your kids to swear in school. Freedom of speech? I don't think so. You have a personal website? I bet it wont stay up long if you put up hate speech against other races/religions/sexes. Most ISPs do not permit such things to be hosted on their servers. Where is your free speech now?

If the moderators feel the desire to remove one of your PRECIOUS posts, they can do it. You'll just have to get over it. It comes with the PRIVILEGE, not the RIGHT, of using another persons server. Learn the difference, and be a better person. Otherwise, start your own electronics forum.

Moderators may edit/delete as they see fit... but this just irked the ever loving biscuits out of me...

 

First to reply to Thingmaker3, regarding eBay at first I thought they had to get involved and remove malicious or false comments made by their members to other members especially if those comments fall under the category of Libel. The Court established that it would violate laws and that could backfire eBay, by not being partial to everyone. This took the Court and eBay a great deal of research in case law and Supreme Court decisions. So I understood their position. Finally I did agree with that decision and I did not appeal that ruling for that cause of action in part because a had others. Even I felt eBay did not care about their members as they should and that those false comments injuring the reputation of sellers perfectly fall under the Libel statue. There are even constitutional laws like the right of association, freedom of speech, public gathering, etc. being violated by eliminating member’s posts. As I said a few times already exceptions are made when content is offensive or illegal it should be removed. Also when the content is known to be false an injurious to the reputation of the individual it ought to be removed by third parties.
With respect to the other fellow while your opinion is accepted you do not have a clue about law. Trust me on that I have seen plenty of case law I know what I am talking about. It will take pages to go thoroughly of why and when and agreement becomes void. While ignorance of the law has never been a defence, there is such a thing as an "unconscionable advantage".
Some people reasoning of the law is so upside down that when it comes the time for them to understand it is too late and they are already found themselves in Court.
Knowing about Law is a very helpful thing in todays society.

Law is very easy to exercise just do what is right exercising care with the rights and feelings of others and you should be fine. We all made mistakes the thing is that sometimes we pay for them.

 

There are even constitutional laws like the right of association, freedom of speech, public gathering, etc. being violated by eliminating member’s posts.

Maybe you should look further into that "Freedom of Speech" thing. Seeings how this is not YOUR website, you are not free to express your opinions. You DO have the ability to protest this on your OWN website. I find it offensive that you think you can tell other people how to run their forums. Where is their right to control their private property? Just because you can convert this pseudo-intellectual vomit into text and post it on a forum doesn't mean the people who own it DON'T have a right to remove items which they deem unnecessary. Why do you have a problem with people being able to take control of their PRIVATE PROPERTY and do with it what they wish?

I've honestly never seen someone start projectile text vomiting LAW THIS and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT over having a post deleted. Go be a martyr somewhere else.

 

Bill by you allowing public to use your BBS you must comply with Public Policy. The public has a lot of rights even in your 100% privately owned BBS. The BBS site will not be what it is if it was not for the public there. You are using the public for your personal satisfaction. They are the most important part, without them your BBS will not be a Bulletin Board.
Users are free to leave it if they do not like your BBS but if you have violated someone's rights that person is in his right to seek redress for aggrieves.
People often confuse public places or semi-public places with their homes. There are many differences under the law for both.
Another thing people don't understand about agreements is that if the agreement is found to have unlawfull terms it will be VOID under the Law. Unlawful agreements are void, certainly an agreement violating public policy is unlawful. Just because you agree to it does not necesarily mean you have to abide by it. For instance if you did not know at the time of the agreement that it was unlawful or under another circumstances even if you know it was unlawful and you agree you are violating the law too. For example if I made an agreement with someone to kill him and he sign it does that give me the right to kill him? (Dr. kaborkian comes to mind)

Uh... No. The Law is on my side on this one, I've even posted it (the law statute) on my board along with my TOS (Terms of Service), which is the same thing as the forum rules posted here. Public policy doesn't mean squat, I am not the government, so constitutional rights don't apply either. Do you think the National Enquirer is required to follow your rules?

We can tell you are not a lawyer, and you don't operate under the same laws we do. Every country is different. If we took money the rules do change, especially for discrimination, but that doesn't apply either. I don't know where you got this concept of Public Policy, but it is bogus.

The only thing I have to worry about is slander or libel, which is what you keep talking about. That is a civil matter between individuals, and only involves the judicial system if it is brought up between individuals. eBay and other organizations commonly try to get out from under judicial systems with private arbitration, but that only works so far, and doesn't apply here in any case.

BTW, I've been running BBSes since around 1989, using them even longer, I believe I have a bit more experience in this field than you. I've definitely been tracking the laws that affect me longer than you have.

 

Let me tell you something every single Corporation in America is doing things against the Law.
It is sad people do not have a clue about law, especially in the States. That is the reason that the USA is the country in the world where there are more lawyers per individual. It is also the country where people sue the most. They obiously have problems understanding of the Law.
I am not a lawyer I never said I was. I did study Criminology in school. And I sued many Corporations and even lawyers and made money from them. I did use many BBS back in the late 80's. Law is the same in any democratic society, people application is wrong.
A public gathering place is not your Home why can't you understand that.
To make it easier for you to understand. Look at those signs that used to say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". While it has a lot of macho on the top aptitud it is highly illegal. Have you seen many of those lately...
Just forget about all the written Laws and think like this: What is the right thing to do... and just do it. If Bill for example thinks it is ok to delete people posts or to cancel members form his BBS on his likings he is in for a surprise one of this days also deep inside he knows that is wrongdoing. I can tell he never got sued.

 

@theamber,

I am offended by your uninformed and unwarranted criticism of US law and its citizens, of which I am one.

It is also the country where people sue the most. They obiously have problems understanding of the Law.

Do you have any evidence that lawsuits are a logical consequence of not understanding the law?

As you readily point out, you are no lawyer. I suggest you stop trying to practice American law by giving advice on it.

I am tired of reading your veiled threats to sue. Move on. I fully support our moderators' decision in this matter and any other editing may may chose to do.

John

 

Pretty hard for most of us to try and figure what was so damned important in that deleted post, that you can't just let it go, and move on. Threats of getting sued, if forum owners continue to delete rubbish from their site? How have you been damaged? None of your money or property was involved. You weren't physically attacked. And I can't believe they were anything but kind and cordial about explaining why they felt your post was removed. You said yourself, that you've been to court over similar issues, so AAC couldn't possibly be held responsible for your condition.

This forum for hobby electronics, it's not suppose to be so serious. They could delete my every post daily, and it wouldn't bother me much, I said my piece, and moved on. When I was told to play nice with the Canadians, I complied out of respect. I appreciate being part of this forum.

Instead of trying to change everything to your liking, why not look into other forums, and find one the better suited to you. There are dozens of similar sites, some are don't seem to be moderated at all, others are almost university strict in their policies. This one has just the right balance for me.

 

Let me tell you something every single Corporation in America is doing things against the Law.
It is sad people do not have a clue about law, especially in the States. That is the reason that the USA is the country in the world where there are more lawyers per individual. It is also the country where people sue the most. They obiously have problems understanding of the Law.

I suspect attitude and all you are without a clue about the law, and many other things besides. Free speech has never meant I allow someone to stand in my front yard and speak their mind, it means they can speak their mind in public spaces (which my front yard, my BBS and this forum isn't) and on their own nickle (as in publish your own newspaper), nothing more. Even then there are restrictions, you are not allowed to endanger the public by yelling "FIRE" in a theater for example, or publish articles that could endanger the public (classified documents are one example of this).

I am not a lawyer I never said I was. I did study Criminology in school. And I sued many Corporations and even lawyers and made money from them. I did use many BBS back in the late 80's. Law is the same in any democratic society, people application is wrong.

Again you show sever lack of understanding of even the basics. Laws are extremely specific to countries, and democracies vary considerably.

A public gathering place is not your Home why can't you understand that.
To make it easier for you to understand. Look at those signs that used to say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". While it has a lot of macho on the top aptitud it is highly illegal. Have you seen many of those lately...

Yep, mostly Mom and Pop operations. It is to allow right to refuse arrogant and obnoxious people. No one has to put up with rudeness, this is common sense at it's most basic.

Just forget about all the written Laws and think like this: What is the right thing to do... and just do it. If Bill for example thinks it is ok to delete people posts or to cancel members form his BBS on his likings he is in for a surprise one of this days also deep inside he knows that is wrongdoing. I can tell he never got sued.

You spout the rule of law and then deny it, your logic is flawed at its most basic, as is your understanding of law. My advice is to move on to where you feel comfortable, or learn to abide by the rules (which is the law here). BTW, feel free to sue me for stating my opinion, this makes about as much sense as anything else you've said. The loser pays court costs in Texas, so I'll be looking forward to it.

I decide what the right thing to do, not you, on my BBS as it is my PERSONAL property, I own 100% of it, you own 0%. I can delete users, make private posts public (as stated in my TOS), kick users off, restrict them, block them, or anything I choose to do. The reasons I don't is am offering a public service with my money, and want to keep it friendly.

I suspect I'm more likely to do the right things than you from what you've said. My call, not yours. You want control, start your own. VB is always available for sale, as is web space.

I've read the laws on the matter, reprinted them as a matter of fact. What, other than a loud opinion, what have you got?

 

I stand 100% behind the Intelligent Moderator's of this Electronic
forum.The forum give you many choice's and the Moderator's are
fair,they offer you private message's to respond any question's.
Bill is one of the most open and competent member's ,he has many
very technical post to his credit. Always ready to help any member.
Thanks Guy's LOOSEWIRE

 

One thing I forget to add, which I suspect 'theamber' is quite familiar with, is the system for paying for lawsuits in the USA. Unlike like many systems around the world which allow the winner in any lawsuit to claim and get attorneys fees and costs from the loser, in the USA that is not generally the case. It is even called "The American" system.

Thus, there is a substantial industry of attorneys and "professional complainants" who will sue for any cause, not so much to win, but to obtain a settlement before trial. Such nuisance lawsuits are often settled, not on merit, but for the simple business decision that it costs less to pay than to go to court. The practice is in essence extortion, and we have laws against it. Unfortunately, our courts have rarely applied those laws, and the attorneys know it.

So, it is not the fear of losing, it is the cost of defense that most reasonable people fear in business. The threat of a lawsuit, like terrorism, can never be taken lightly. It is often best to deal with such bullies early on and without cause, before they can actually fabricate a reason to sue.

John

 

Look at those signs that used to say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". While it has a lot of macho on the top aptitud it is highly illegal. Have you seen many of those lately...

Absolutely not. When it is a private business the owners, under any circumstances, can ask an individual to leave. This is perfectly legal barring discrimination on race, religion, gender, etc. etc.
A mall, widely open to the public, is still a privately held business. You act the fool, then security can escort you out without fear of legal action from you.
This BBS is widely open to the public and operates under the same reasoning. You act the fool, then the moderators can delete, lock, or kick you off and you have no legal recourse.
This is what Freedom of Speech is in the United States. One has a right to protest and say what they want about the government on public property and not be clonked on the head and thrown in jail.
I am not sure why are you pushing this subject. Maybe you feel you have been singled out or maybe you take offense to what you see as censorship.
I can tell you that I have not experienced 'Holier Than Thou' moderators here at AAC. So I would suggest to calm down and let it go. It is no big deal.

 

As I said earlier this is just a dialog to get different points of view. It is not a big deal in my case but in another's case it could.
Actually it is true many cases get settled before trial. But a case has 30 days to demostrate a cause of action or it will be thrown out. There must be damages too. So people just don't give money away for nothing. I did several lawsuits with weak causes of action and believe me they fight. Usually there is always something unlawful about a company. I was sued and I knew I was wrong but I fought too. Sometimes it is like a bluffing game, mostly the lawyers love big talks but do little action.

The thing is what you guys think about having your posts deleted by moderators if those posts are neither against the law nor insulting to anyone, that was all.
Don't have to be afraid they are not going to suspend your account and don't have to be the followers type either. Express your honest truthful opinion I really know deep inside noone like to have its work destroyed by others it is human nature (e.g. post deleted). Well I did not like it, but I can live with it and it did not cause me any emotional distress or anything of that nature. Actually I think I was wrong and I did apologize but certainly I did not like it to be deleted. I thought it would of be better for the moderator to add to my silly comment instead of deleting it.

 

The thing is what you guys think about having your posts deleted by moderators if those posts are neither against the law nor insulting to anyone, that was all.

I am of the opinion that a moderator or board owner can do with what they please on their forum as long as it is not illegal. This is the argument you will always run up against. Fine, so be it.

If the moderator or owners play favorites with members, deletes, locks, or bans members for silly reasons then they have to face losing membership.

There is never a point to argue over BBS policy or moderator behavior since most of the time moderators and owners are surrounded by sycophants anyway. 9 times out of 10 you will lose even if you are objectively correct.

Maybe the moderator was overzealous for deleting your post, I am not sure. Perhaps they should explain themselves, but that is up to them.

So let us have fun with answering electronic questions.

 

I did several lawsuits with weak causes of action and believe me they fight.

Sounds like your are in it only for the money and may have become known as a professional victim. Moreover, you are fighting from safe foreign soil where it is virtually impossible to enforce a judgment from a US court against you. That must make you feel proud to abuse our system.

Actually I think I was wrong and I did apologize but certainly I did not like it to be deleted. I thought it would of be better for the moderator to add to my silly comment instead of deleting it.

Now you really don't make sense. Perhaps you could suggest something the moderator could have added that would have been better than simply deleting it?

John

 

I did live in the US for 18 years and I sued from US soil.
Imagine one thing; you are talking and say something about me and I do not like it, do you preffer me covering your mouth or add to your comments to develop a mutual dialog (both sides)to make you comprehend that what you said was unecessary. I think the latter is more reasonable and thoughtful but I may be wrong.
For instance if I am a moderator first I don't talk negative about a post made by someone unless I have a better solution for the OPs problem. Second if someone tell me "stop wasting bytes". I would of kindly responded "that is my job to use bytes to make the thread develops, to encourage members to post. My job is to comment about something even if I have nothing to say about it I have to be noticeable, I have to work". I would of say something like that.

 

Moderators may edit/delete as they see fit... but this just irked the ever loving biscuits out of me...

Thank you, M4yh3m. I did. I deleted the ad-hominem content.

I did this since ad-hominem content is not in keeping with our Rules, Code of Conduct and Terms and Conditions of Usage, rule #1. By making such and edit, I was acting under the second paragraph of rule #7. I was also acting in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, section 509, which updates the Communications Act of 1934. This portion of US law is sometimes called "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act." Astute readers may notice the word "harassing" or the phrase "otherwise objectionable." Ad-hominem content fits at least one of those terms. I and the other moderators act "in good faith" when we remove such content.


I also have a record of editing posts with objectionable language, substituting socially acceptable epithets in place of cuss words. The other moderators have taken similar action. Again, this is done "in good faith."

I'm usually pretty subtle with such action, but in this instance am taking M4yh3m's kind invitation to illustrate a point. Thank you again, M4yh3m. Oh, and play nice, darn it!

Of course, there is the issue of whether the All About Circuits forums fall under US or Canadian jurisdiction...

 

Different points of view are good. Trying to tell someone how to do their job isn't quite the same. I got a little hot, mainly because I'm very proud of the work I've put in and I am Judge, Jury, and Advisor in my little world.

This is the bigger world, but the same principles apply. Be mindful as I am that we are guests. This site allows things that no one else comes close on, but moderation is still required, and I feel the job done here is superior. All the old hands are professionals, and if they don't teach they could (I think I could be included in that number).

I was thinking of opening up my own website, but I can do here about 95% what I was wanting to do there, and I could probably get by with the remaining 5% if I asked nicely.

Best of all, it's all free and I don't have to work my butt off taking care of the side issues! Heaven on earth!

 

Hi I find the exchanges interesting, maybe the original poster is more legal minded and knows of situations where persons had sued for matters where they think they can make a dollar with the help of a lawyer,and maybe alerting us to be extra ordinarily careful. However I never knew the moderators intervene in exchanges-except posting their own point of view. Over two years ago I was involved on this site in an exchange with one member wherein every time he posted an incorrect info and it is pointed out to him he introduces another incorrect point, and I had thought then a moderator should have stepped in , no one did step-in and I discontinued participating in that thread, so yes, I think that moderators should be able to intervene , where they are of the view the particular post offends forum rules.

 

Hi I find the exchanges interesting, maybe the original poster is more legal minded and knows of situations where persons had sued for matters where they think they can make a dollar with the help of a lawyer,and maybe alerting us to be extra ordinarily careful. However I never knew the moderators intervene in exchanges-except posting their own point of view. Over two years ago I was involved on this site in an exchange with one member wherein every time he posted an incorrect info and it is pointed out to him he introduces another incorrect point, and I had thought then a moderator should have stepped in , no one did step-in and I discontinued participating in that thread, so yes, I think that moderators should be able to intervene , where they are of the view the particular post offends forum rules.

You understand and you have brought a very interesting point in that situation a moderator should of have stepped in but not to erase the incorrect posts but to clarify them leaving them for everyone to see and learn. What is right and what is wrong.

 

All About Circuits is not the setting for a John Grisham novel.

In fact I understand it is based in Canada, not the States.

Now I don't know how the legal system works in Canada, but in many Commonwealth countries it is based on the UK system, which is vastly different from the USA model.

Here in the UK there is a strong distinction between Criminal law and Civil law.
Breach of Criminal Law leads to prosecution, not a lawsuit for damages.
Breach of Civil Law may lead to a lawsuit for damages, but

Firstly the liability is only for damage 'actually suffered'.
Punitive damages do not exist.
There is a duty upon the injured party to keep the damages (losses) incurred to a minimum and to co-operate with putting matters right.
For instance if I break your spectacles you are only entitled to the value (replacement cost) of those spectacles, or similar. You are not entitled to go up to London, stay in a slapup hotel and obtain a pair of gold plated replacements from a more expensive optician than you would usually visit.
Damages are set by the Judge, not a Jury.

However you did actually ask what my reaction to a moderator editing or even deleting a post might be.

Well I have found the moderators here at AAC to be as polite, curteous and helpful as british policemen used to be 50 years ago. They only bring out the rubber truncheons for those who richly deserve it.
I only wish our policemen today were cast from the same mould. They are more likely to turn and walk the other way when you need them for fear of being sued by the criminal.