Anon. members - Forums open to court action??

[justasking111]

Was quite shocked to see this. Will this be a test case? Mumsnet is such a tame well run site compared to the comments I see in the online press. Is the writing on the wall for free (cough) speech or is it a culling of trolling. Personally I think that something needs to be done, some folk have no filter or are just plain nasty.

news.yahoo.com/transgender-activist-wins-court-ruling-forcing-parenting-website-reveal-identity-alleged-online-abuser-121317596.html

That’s quite a case of control freakery you’ve got thereOP. It’s friday. Chill. A G&T might help.

The case in your OP is Mumsnet following this procedure for website operators if they are sent a notice of complaint about allegedly defamatory material posted on their site. It's not to do with the proposed new laws, this is the defamation act 2013.

A poster posted some information which the complainant alleged was defamatory.

The complainant presumably reported the post and MNHQ decided it did not break talk guidelines so did not delete.

The complainant sent a notice of complaint to MNHQ. This gave Mumsnet a way out of being liable for the content. The procedure is to contact the poster and ask if they want the content removed or if not, to ask for full legal name and address, DoB and email. If the poster doesn't respond or sends obviously false details, MNHQ must delete the material. The poster's details are not passed to the complainant without permission but they must be provided to the website operator if they want the content to stand.

(Website operators still have the option of defending the defamation claim themselves but they'd have to really really care to choose a lengthy legal battle over just hitting delete or passing liability to the poster.)

In this case, the poster responded saying they didn't want the content removed, provided some contact details but did not give permission for the details to be passed on.

The complainant then applied for a court order to make MNHQ pass over the details, which they did. They also deleted the content.

This doesn't imply anything about the content or whether it was defamatory. MNHQ have complied with a court order to provide some information, that's all. They said they'd be willing to contest the court order if the poster asked them to but they didn't respond in time.

One possible ground for contesting such an order would be if you didn't believe the information would be used for the stated purpose. For example if someone told a judge they needed a mumsnet poster's real life details so they could take them to court for defamation when actually they intended to add the details to a database of Bad Women and then share this with their friends and followers.

And all of this so far is just about getting the name of someone for the complainant to take to court (assuming good faith). The complainant would then have to show that they have suffered serious harm to their reputation.

I have read the deleted content in this case and, while I found it very informative, it didn't alter my opinion of the complainant's character at all.

Even if the complainant could show that they have suffered serious harm to their reputation there are a number of defences that can be used by either the poster, the website operator or both.

In this case, the defences of truth and public interest are both relevant.

Sloth said It wasn't anything like you can't change sex etc or anything else factual.
See now that wording would indeed be transphobic to some. And those people might also think a transwoman with a GRC saying they don't support Self ID is also transphobic (and I'm thinking of someone who isn't Hayden) . It's a minefield.

I don't think it's right to link this to a trans agenda.

Not when MN has gone through all thus before on other topics (such as regarding a litigious school). It wasn't a FWR issue then, and it still isn't now.

Yes, the law applies to issues that are of great concern to posters in FWR, but that's because it apples to all complainants,

I'm unclear whether OP wants to talk about the defamation act 2013, as their OP suggests, or the recent press reports about proposed laws to tackle harmful online content.

Those are two very different threads.

OP you're just rude. You can't have an intelligent discussion with someone so ignorant. I asked a genuine question. I don't post in the feminism boards. You're behaving in exactly the way you are so critical of.

reddogs “Funnily enough those threads were posted by the person who took out the Court Order requesting the user details from MN .....”

No, they weren’t.

They were threads posted by regulars, responded to by regulars, with no signs of trolling or disruption. Just plain old transphobic posting by MN users on the FWR board.

They were threads posted by regulars, responded to by regulars, with no signs of trolling or disruption. Just plain old transphobic posting by MN users on the FWR board

What threads are you actually talking about?

They were threads posted by regulars, responded to by regulars, with no signs of trolling or disruption. Just plain old transphobic posting by MN users on the FWR board

I must have missed those. If you think this is a major problem you should screenshot or save links to deletion messages because wafting generic accusations of transphobia at the whole of FWR is really not on.

I loved that deletion message Pencils 😂

Crimp I disagree, the person I am alluding to whose thread(s) were taken down has been very vocal about it on Twitter, their posting on existing threads and starting their own was very deliberate. The e-mail from MN which has been shared publicly by the recipient pretty much says so.

The irony is if they had half a brain they would see that this white paper is to the benefit of minorities/hate crimes.

I am not convinced of that, as I stated earlier what is the absolute definition? Who decides on that definition? What bias is there in the definition? How far reaching is the definition?

Restriction on speech is not something that should be taken lightly, it can be the thin end of a very large and dangerous wedge.

Yes, it's great isn't it? I love MNHQ's email to the complainant too (as published in the Daily Mail):

Dear [complainant]

Here are the details we hold of the poster [the poster] as requested by Court Order.

[MailOnline has seen, but is not publishing, the supplied user details]

As you know we continue to moderate Mumsnet with regard to our Talk Guidelines which are designed to promote civility, whilst allowing a space for diverse opinion and debate. We also keep a close eye on our obligations under the Defamation Act.

We've been giving some thought to your own status as a Mumsnet user following your suspension last week for misleading and inflammatory behaviour.

Whilst we are instinctively against censorship, we do periodically find it necessary to rescind the membership of those who seem unable to accept our moderation rules and/or whose sole aim in visiting Mumsnet is to promote a single issue in a deliberately inflammatory way.

Ultimately our aim is to make parents' lives easier. On a daily basis we have hundreds of thousands of parents using Mumsnet's free forums for advice and support, often with regard to extremely difficult life situations such as serious illness, bereavement, living with disabilities, or domestic violence.

We believe Mumsnet offers an extremely valuable resource for those users and frankly we are keen to be able to focus our moderation resource on serving their needs rather than dealing with the problems caused by inflammatory trolls.

We will of course continue to moderate Mumsnet closely and to remove sweeping or derogatory generalisations about any minority group including trans people, as well as posts which break the law.

And you are more than welcome to email us a link to any post that you believe transgresses our guidelines - we will always look at it in a timely fashion, and remove it if we agree with your assessment.

Best regards and go well

Yeah I saw that Pencils - I ❤️ “Go well”

It's a shame that you made your OP about this case 'justasking111'.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the white paper but your OP was about a current, personal-to-mumsnet case which has nothing to do with the proposed new law.

I love these paragraphs:

Ultimately our aim is to make parents' lives easier. On a daily basis we have hundreds of thousands of parents using Mumsnet's free forums for advice and support, often with regard to extremely difficult life situations such as serious illness, bereavement, living with disabilities, or domestic violence.

We believe Mumsnet offers an extremely valuable resource for those users and frankly we are keen to be able to focus our moderation resource on serving their needs rather than dealing with the problems caused by inflammatory trolls.

Thank you @MNHQ for supporting regular MNers

'I'm unclear whether OP wants to talk about the defamation act 2013, as their OP suggests, or the recent press reports about proposed laws to tackle harmful online content,'

Ditto - OP wouid you clarify?

I'm still waiting for links or screenshots of direct transphobia on here. In your own time.

I'm still waiting for links or screenshots of direct transphobia on here. In your own time.

I've already explained that any posts that I saw that were transphobic, I reported and they were deleted.

@sleeping

Great stuff. I have also reported any transphobia on the rare occasion I've come across it. Mumsnet are very quick at deleting it, I've found.

I have never seen any transphobic comments allowed to stand.

I have never seen any transphobic comments allowed to stand.

I hope that's the case. I don't very often go onto the feminism board, I only usually read if the threads come up in active. Most of the comments I've reported have been by the same few posters, they seem out to shock and sound very dense when you compare their posts to others in the threads I've read. Most posters put their views across well, without being offensive, even though I don't agree with everything they say....which is life.

FenellaVelour stated there were transphobic comments on this thread, so where and what are they?

Again. Sleeping your comment that It wasn't anything like you can't change sex etc or anything else factual. is transphobic.
You are describing biology as immutable. Factual. The transgender movement disagree. Stephanie Hayden would disagree I'm sure.

Again. Sleeping your comment that It wasn't anything like you can't change sex etc or anything else factual. is transphobic.

Chromosomal sex can not be changed. I am happy to call a trans woman, a woman, use preferred pronouns, share toilets and changing rooms, think of them as a woman etc. The fact remains that you can't change chromosomes....that's why I wouldn't ask for a post saying that to be deleted. But would I constantly post that....no. I don't feel the need to go around stating it because I try to understand the struggle trans people go through and I don't wish to make that any worse. Also I don't constantly state it because on a day to day basis, no one asks me what chromosomes I have, so I don't feel the need to go around checking other people's. I don't think about my chromosomes when I think I'm a woman. I've only ever thought about chromosomes to pass my Biology exams, it's not part of my everyday life. However someone chooses to live their life, if within the law, that's ok with me. My experience of trans people has been very positive.

I am happy to call a trans woman, a woman, use preferred pronouns, share toilets and changing rooms, think of them as a woman etc.

So, if this lady came into a toilet and stood by the door, you'd not be at all intimidated?

What is it about this person that assists you in 'thinking of them as a woman'? I am genuinely fascinated by people that say they think of trans women as women so please talk me through your thought process. Educate me, I'd love to know.