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

@SuffolkNWhat

Exactly that Calaveras. I don't want to have to dereg but will if needed Rowan.

Understood - it's up to you so maybe have a think about it and mail us at [email protected] when you've decided (which may be contingent on our response to the outstanding question of course).

Ahh, I see. I just think IN MY OPINION, though, that taking down the "defamatory" posts should be enough. I'm talking to you, Billy Biblegins.

Mumsnet deleting your posts protects Mumsnet. It does not protect you. If you have made a defamatory statement there is nothing you can do to take away the subject's right to sue you. Deregistering won't help you either.

"Simply adding the words "in my opinion" provides no protection against an action for libel. To be protected the statement must be a statement of opinion, not one of fact. So if you say, "they did X" that is clearly a statement of fact even if you add the words "in my opinion"."

Basically, criticise no one, smile smile smile, pretend it's all good, your health visitor is awesome, you have no concerns regarding the actions of a charitable organisation, no one every said anything racist despite what they were quoted, smile smile smile.

As I understand it, a number of schools have stopped doing their Operation Shoebox as a result of complaints along the lines of the OP. And Mumsnet is going to be a primary cause of that, given that mumsnet has so many parents of school age children.

So IF there are untrue things said about them on this website, it is definitely a proper use of their funds to send lawyers after Mumsnet, because such posts do damage their mission.

As regards to what is and isn't libellous, then I would say:

'Franklin Graham, who is CEO of Samaritan's purse, has said Islam is wicked and evil' - is NOT libellous
because it's true and he doesn't deny it
but saying that 'Samaritan's Purse are anti-Islamic' might be, because Samaritan's Purse are a charity employing thousands, and the views of their CEO can't always be equated with those of the company.

And my understanding is that, in response to past criticism, UK-originated shoeboxes are free of proselytising. Whereas those coming from America, where proselytising is more popular, they aren't.

Also they have given money to opposing gay marriage: bluenc.com/content/samaritans-purse-spent-150k-nc-constitutional-amendment

I stopped sending shoe boxes a few years ago in light of 'certain charities' methods of distribution that I didn't agree with. Glad to see I made the right choice then ( I now donate £ to charities who I believe/hope that they actually distribute aid unbiased and without clauses)

What WOULD Jesus do?

Oh crikey

Okay

Um, well, if you can remember the um hmm SWMNBM era, we mn users as a cohort agreed to not mention or post about SWMNBM until the coast was clear.

Might I suggest that, led by MNHQ ofc, that we currently avoid the subject of Samaritans' Purse/Op CC until clarification? Pragmatic innit

calaveras, employ all the techniques you have to manage the panic, and posters here will help you if they can

MNHQ are finding the answers as quickly as they can

What's SWMNBM? Can someone PM me if they're watching us it's a no go topic.

They can't sue you if they can't find you though, prh47bridge. So deregging would help in that respect.

None of this is especially new, you know, and it applies all over the internet: it isn't Mumsnet trying to give you a load of flimflam in a cunty duplicitous way.

www.mumsnet.com/media/gina-ford

Ok, but Mumsnet is a discussion site where tons of topics are debated. Users discussing their views here, isn't it largely regarded as opinion and NOT fact? Unless you are saying "It's a fact that...." or speculation on say, a crime. Isn't it obvious that it's opinion or a view that has shaped others' opinions?

What I mean is, no one sets out to defame anyone here, intentionally. It's just discussion.

Cal- all this was true yesterday, and you were fine then, weren't you? Nothing has changed, and you'll be fine now too. Try not to get yourself worked up.

Goodness, this organisation has always given me the creeps. Even more so now. The UK version of their website is quite sanitised compared to their US version.

This heavy handed approach is just going to get more people googling Samaritans purse + controversy. So fewer shoes boxes. Isn't that what this is about, fewer shoeboxes coming out of the UK as support has been declining?

It's got to be bad when a church turns it's back on them? (This has happened in my local area I believe)

I presume this is all because Brian Bennett (Samaritan's Purse head of communications) did not get quite the reception he wanted when he started posting on two threads about Operation Christmas Child last year:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1899505-to-ask-for-your-help-in-writing-an-objection-to-Operation-Christmas-Child

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1868481-AIBU-to-hate-charity-Christmas-shoe-boxes

What exactly is being threatened? A court order to reveal personal details, possibly resulting in an injunction? Or an actual claim for damages for libel?

Claims for damages for libel are incredibly difficult to prove. How would they prove specification, title to sue and loss? And of course, veracity is always a defence to libel.

OTOH issuing repeated, exaggerated and out of proportion threats with no great likelihood of success in court, or deliberately empty threats, might, in the right circumstances, amount to harassment. Particularly if it could be proved that there was a link between targeting a group of persons which had a particular set of characteristics in common. So, for example, if someone targeted a group comprised mainly of women, for making reasonable comments relating to women, that could possibly be construed as sex discrimination, although I think to claim it was sexual harassment would require something more concrete.

I recall a discussion about a school in which numerous posts were made that contained defamatory statements. In some cases the poster did not intend to be defamatory at all, e.g. one said, "I wonder why that is" as a genuine question but in a context that could be taken as "nod, nod, wink, wink, you know what I really mean". Others were passing on rumours about the school which were potentially defamatory, e.g. cheating at exams. So, although this is a discussion site, people do post things that go beyond opinion.

What's the legal situation with regard to posting links to reputable news outlets who have investigated SP and its policies and staff, without additional commentary? Has the Guardian defamed SP or have I in that case?

Gosh, Brian is clearly still smarting after failing to convince last year.

Other thoughts on this? Wouldn't it be a breach of the ECHR ie the human right to freedom of speech?

And is it really in the public interest to make such threats of legal action, when the state would be relatively disinterested in investigating them unless they contain threats or similar?

As well as SWMNBN, there has been another entity which recently raised the possibility of legal proceedings (not naming it, as I don't want to stoke that one again but I'm sure others will remember).

It does seem to be happening more frequently.

i wonder what SP's intended outcome is with this? their actions will almost certainly end up being detailed on their wikipedia page if they haven't been already