to draw your attention to MN'ers being threatened with court for posting

[gordyslovesheep]

By Samaritan's Purse

I know I'm not the only one

who else have they decided to silence?

It's quite interesting that they dislike criticism so much

Ignore my QE comment. I gather that there was much badness while I was in my three year MN hiatus.

Posting to give support.

Holy shit

I have no opinion on Samaritans Purse, or Franklin Graham, I can only suggest that people use internet search engines to investigate their published views on Islam. Right Wing Watch points to some interesting articles on Franklin.

With 'emergency PR and Social Media plan', i mean the offering of advice and support on such an occasion. When something like this happens, many posters are unaware of the risks to their privacy should a post go viral.

MNHQ should offer assistance to any user who may be affected by this. It's frightening to think that your entire posting history could be searched by anyone who recognised you.

this has nothing to do with the legal situation so I don't see why it would be a problem.

Well this thread has opened my eyes..

Ok, I see what you mean. I was thinking you meant MNHQ should have a plan to launch a PR and social media campaign about the fact that someone or some organisation was asking for your posts to be removed.

Just to give you a bit of background to this... we've been contacted frequently by Samaritan's Purse over the course of the last 12 months asking for us to delete posts on Mumsnet.

Since July we've had around 20 emails from them asking us to delete various individual posts and all the threads relating to their organisation on MN prior to Brian's appearance on Mumsnet last year. We didn't comply to those requests.

Then yesterday, SP reported a number of those posts as being defamatory . At that point - under section 5 the new defamation act - we as an online publisher are required to contact posters and to give them the option to delete the complained about posts or to stand by them, in which case the poster has to provide their contact details, so they are contactable in the event of any possible legal action.

It's actually, we think, quite a sensible solution to the problem of online libel - if you're happy to stand by your words - and bear in mind there are a number of defences in libel, most obviously that your words are accurate/true (here's further explanation: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/crossheading/defences/enacted) then you can.

If you're concerned that a post may not be entirely accurate or just don't feel inclined to pass on your contact details to us, then we can remove the post, in which case that would very likely be an end to the matter.

Previously most websites pretty much just removed stuff when they received a defamation complaint - because there was too much risk of becoming embroiled in a myriad of legal actions and they may not know the truth of the matter - now at least the procedure gives users the chance to stand by their words. In that sense this new system is much more amenable to freedom of speech than the previous one.

But of course it does mean we have to send these rather daunting legalesey emails which can seem to be a bit big brother. What's important to remember is that providing contact details to us or any online publisher, doesn't necessarily mean anyone's taking anyone to court. It's just the hoop which websites are obliged by the defamation law to go through, and which allows us not to knee-jerk delete your words whenever someone's shouting libel.

Really? I grew up in a Baptist environment that started becoming heavily influenced by these people in the mid 80s. They're actually anti-everything else apart from their own brand of Christianity and there's some really nasty stuff (think 'church militant' types etc). They're at least as dangerous as radical Muslims. If you're not blonde/blue eyed (in the end it really was just coming down to that- I'm absolutely sure there must be some links to white supremicist groups/WW2 stuff) you're basically screwed (I'm short and dark featured) so I just left. His dad was okay , a bit 'Jesus is the only way' type but never felt his ideology was entering dangerous territory.

It's depressing that they want religious wars.

Cheers Justine. That's interesting to know.

A few minutes of googling certainly suggests that threats of legal action may have allegedly been made quite routinely over several years, by certain organisations, against individual posters of online opinions.

It might be further concluded that there is no evidence of any of those threats ever being taken further.

Some might say that an organisation with a track record of making baseless threats of this nature a) should not have those threats taken unduly seriously & b) should be aware that such behaviour might possibly adversely affect its already dingy reputation.

I agree that the legislation is fairer - the problem is with the way defamation or libel can be pursued through the courts. You may have an individual or organisation for whom the fees of Carter-Ruck* are loose change against someone for whom a spare tenner is a cause for celebration. Does the individual stand by their statement then, even if they have evidence and sincerely believe it? Principles are far too risky for most ordinary people.

*Please note - other expensive, highly effective libel lawyers are available

I would add (c) to point out that charities are subject to certain rules and requirements imposed upon them by the Charities Commission with regard to their activities and how they fund them.

Wow, shit got real! Hope all posters involved are ok.

Twenty emails from SP?

Good grief.

As a Christian I would like to apologise to MNetters who are being threatened with litigation. They do not speak on my behalf.

Interestingly, this is the second time this week I have had to apologise for Christian behaviour.

Brian - hi. Wouldn't it be better to just turn the other cheek here? The PR ramifications of suing a group of mothers are incredibly detrimental. Also,1 Corinthians 6:7 is quite clear.

Wow Wonc you know your shit.

OK thanks, my attention has been drawn. Too late tonight to read the whole thread but I'll have a proper look in the morning.

Sounds like an "I am Spartacus" FB campaign might be good? I.e. loads and loads and bloody loads of people all post the offending bit of text on Facebook, they can't sue us all and it gets the issue lots of publicity, all of which is damaging to SP.

I've just sent a link to this thread to the Richard Dawkins Foundation. I think they might find all this very interesting too and if they so choose could publicise this extensively.

Another wow for Monc. Just looked up that verse. How apt.

Wonc even.

Hmmm, my dc brought Samaritan's Purse leaflets home yesterday. I was ambivalent about whether to participate, this thread has certainly made my mind up for me ......

How v v apt, Wonc

I feel sad that posters have felt compelled to de-reg over this. to Mumsnet 4 (or is it 5 or 6 now?)

Very apt Wonc. I'm an atheist and although I don't speak for everyone, please never think I'd judge any religion by the actions of those 'at the top' or drawing a salary from it. I'm no Christian, but I respect those who hold the views and try to live their lives in a better way as a result of that. I don't feel you have any need to apologise at all

SP it would be better to come on and explain why these allegations are not true.

Giraffe, Brian Thingie came on last year to do a live chat, from what I recall, and failed to convince. God knows (see what I did there?) why they think it's a good idea to attempt to stifle free speech when they were given a chance by Mn to explain themselves and didn't...