Clearance Items

    Quote from sifferkoll

    Not so. I'm certainly against any type of censorship. I thought that was clear?


    Not clear in the slightest. To the contrary, I suspect you would be relieved if we censored whole topics.


    Quote from sifferkoll

    The only criteria I support for moderation is when the behaviour om members includes possibly criminal actions; like libel, threats etc. This is reasonable I believe. Dont you think?


    It's reasonable to shut off discussion of something if the person making the remark is unable to produce facts to support his position. But if facts can be produced, it's rare that a discussion would be shut off. Take the example of someone now in jail for pedophilia. It is not libel or threat to say "So and so is a pedophile." And that is making a very strong statement.


    If that statement were made without any support, the claim is libelous, and the discussion should be shut down. If the claim is made with lots and lots of support, as many claims here are, libel does not apply.


    Quote from sifferkoll

    Determining what is an ad hom or not is as you have so clearly proven more of a political exercise than truth seeking, and ultimately creates a downward slope. And as you probaly know politics rarely have much to do with truth so you might as well stop acting like a politician trying to nurse an ideal environment for your voters.


    You are using an ad hom attack by claiming that politics motivate my actions somehow, and you leave the actions unstated. A less ad hom-y argument would bring into play specific facts, which you seem averse to doing.

    libel


    1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion.


    No worries about the stuff that infuriates you. You just need to wait for Rossi to prove that he is not a liar and a fraud. Good luck.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    It's reasonable to shut off discussion of something if the person making the remark is unable to produce facts to support his position


    Yes. This is what I'm talking about. All you have to do now, to try this new policy of yours, is to browse through a handful of your favourite pet Mary's comments make a judgement ... As I did earlier today.

    Quote from interested observer

    libel


    1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion.


    No worries about the stuff that infuriates you. You just need to wait for Rossi to prove that he is not a liar and a fraud. Good luck.


    Agree that this might differ on jurisdiction. And I have only read the Swedish "brottsbalken" and, not that it matters much, there are scenarios where someone can sue for libel and win even though the accusations are true. Depends om damage done by the libel.


    But it is not really important in the context of moderation. As the publisher/moderator of a website you should remove content that is possibly libel the same way as you should remove content that are personal threats. Otherwise you are possibly accountable.

    Quote from interested observer

    This is not a court room. Libel is a legal matter between a plaintiff and a defendant. It is not the business of managers of a blog. For that matter, things said about Rossi by strangers are not your business either. If they offend you, don’t read them.




    It could certainly be the business of managers and moderators of the forum. And what I consider my business is certainly not YOUR business. As you might have noticed this is a discussion on what to moderate and what no. And from the legal perspective it is obvious that possibly criminal actions like libel and threats should be removed first, long before the political nursery starts. And btw, if you don't like my comments - don't read them and don't comment ...




    Quote from sifferkoll

    Yes. This is what I'm talking about. All you have to do now, to try this new policy of yours, is to browse through a handful of your favourite pet Mary's comments make a judgement ... As I did earlier today.


    To the contrary. She has just enough basis in fact in what she says that it is usually not possible or desirable to shut down conversation. In such cases it is left to other forum participants to point out the error if there is one.


    This is not a new policy. This is how we have been running this forum for years.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    To the contrary. She has just enough basis in fact in what she says that it is usually not possible or desirable to shut down conversation. In such cases it is left to other forum participants to point out the error if there is one.


    This is not a new policy. This is how we have been running this forum for years.


    Nope. It has not enough bias. Far from. And you have not running here that long, and you are the one bringing damaged goods.

    Quote from sifferkoll

    Nope. It has not enough bias. Far from. And you have not running here that long, and you are the one bringing damaged goods.


    Bias is not something we can do much about. As I said, you would like us to censor certain topics (and certain people). You seem to wish that readers did not have all of the information at their disposal to draw informed conclusions about the people you like. You would no doubt be happier at another forum, where the approach is different.

    Quote

    It might be a defence, but it is certainly not enough. Calling someone a child molester and/or fraudster might be libel even of it turns out you are correc

    Ah... that could just possibly be true elsewhere but not in the US where freedom of speech is highly prized. Truth, far as I know, is always an adequate defense against libel and slander accusations. I am not a lawyer so maybe one can comment. And the law may differ in the UK and EU. Just for fun, what is an example of telling the truth that could be viewed by a court as libel?

    Quote

    That is not the way it work is it Mary? It is hardly Rossis or anybodies task to prove themselves innocent of your accusations. Most legal systems are supposed to work the other way around for good reasons. You might think it's bad, then transfer to one of those countries with those systems. You'd like it.

    That is not the way it works in court, of course, though in the US, civil courts only require "the preponderance of evidence" while criminal courts usually require "beyond reasonable doubt." Again, I am not a lawyer so if I am wrong, I hope a lawyer will correct me. But opinion on a forum is not a verdict in a court. And if it walks, talks, looks, and quacks like the proverbial duck, Rossi is a liar and a crook about the thermoelectric device. I won't review the evidence again but it overwhelming that Rossi never made such a device, it was never tested anywhere, especially not at and by U of New Hampshire, the prototype was probably a dummy mockup if even that, and the devices delivered to CERL and tested by CERL turned out to be surplus junk, probably from Russia, and purchased from a San Diego company as rejects. Maybe that doesn't constitute fraud in your book but the net result is that after all their proposals, expert opinions, designers, test rigs, tests and of course direct payments to Rossi, CERL was out almost $9 million and got nothing in return. Essentially the same great service from Rossi that IH and Woodford got.

    Quote from sifferkoll

    It might be a defence, but it is certainly not enough. Calling someone a child molester and/or fraudster might be libel even of it turns out you are correct


    Yes, it is enough. To sue someone for libel, you must prove the statement in question is not true.


    Quote from sifferkoll

    That is not the way it work is it Mary? It is hardly Rossis or anybodies task to prove themselves innocent of your accusations. Most legal systems are supposed to work the other way around for good reasons.


    You are confused. An accusation in an internet forum is not a legal charge, and you are right that one does not have to prove oneself innocent of such accusations to prevent legal action.


    This applies to an accusation of libel as well: if one is accused of libel in an internet forum, it is not necessary to prove oneself innocent of libel to avoid legal action.


    But when someone is legally charged, then the charge must be proven. That's the principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty. And this also applies to accusations of libel, which happen in civil court. But for a libel suit to succeed, the accuser must prove libel, and that means proving the accused has lied, which may entail proving oneself innocent of the allegedly libelous statement.


    As already quoted: "It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie."


    So, yes, if Rossi were to sue someone for libel for calling him a fraud, he would have to prove he is not a fraud. It is exactly consistent with innocent-until-proven-guilty.


    Capiche?

    THIS POST AND THE FOUR BELOW IT MOVED HERE AS OT IN THE QUANTUM GRAVITY THREAD. OTHERWISE FINE! Alan.



    Today I got the following message:

    You have been temporarily banned from participating in r/EmDrive. This ban will last for 365 days. You can still view and subscribe to r/EmDrive, but you won't be able to post or comment. Note from the moderators: Due to your persistent and aggressive commenting, often to just yourself I'm banning you for a year from this sub. Please don't violate reddits rules and return under other pseudonym. If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/EmDrive by replying to this message. Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.

    No previous warning or even communication has been issued from moderators: neither via private messagging, neither via reddit comments. I never got any other ban or even warning in this reddit during last two years of my visits. The reasoning of ban is even not listed in subreddit rules (current backup) so it's solely arbitrary.

    Regarding the "persistent and aggressive commenting", I've been stalked by users like crackpot_killer and his rude and mindless posts (as follows from his post history), which I didn't reply and which were always left without attention of moderators, despite my occasional call for action. I never replied to my own posts ("aggressive commenting, often to just yourself"), aggressively the less - so it's evident, the purpose of such a "moderation" is censorship by supporters of mainstream science, who just want gradually but systematically to eliminate the awareness of laymen public about important findings violating established physics by all means possible.

    if Rossi were to sue someone for libel for calling him a fraud, he would have to prove he is not a fraud. It is exactly consistent with innocent-until-proven-guilty.

    Nope, I don't capiche. The burden of proof should be on accuser, not his victim, after then. Not to say, the accusations of fraud always make permanent damage, even if they turn out to be completely unsubstantial. So that the accuser should keep his responsibility for such damage and to pay, once he cannot prove his point.

    Zephir: you are mixing up the act of saying something about someone (the alleged instance of libel) with a legal matter (suing someone for libel.) Burden of proof is a legal concept, not a practical one. And if the so-called libelous statements are true, then there is no victim. There is simply the subject of an accurate statement.


    When you are put in charge of the legal system, free free to change how all this works.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.