TM - a little confused......?

complaining from anyone can ban you: My response from TM and I think some know who we're talking about LOL:

"I can assure you that we only disable accounts if they are making multiple breaches of our message board rules. Therefore no matter how much other members may complain or try to get your account banned, we only take action if there are genuine breaches of the rules. If there are not then we just dismiss their complaints. So as long as you post on Trade Me within the rules no amount of complaining from them will get you banned.

In terms of the MB2 threads, you may want to contact the moderators there to see if they can do anything about those posts.

I also suggest that if you think this matter could escalate that you lay a harassment complaint with the police, especially if there are defamatory comments being thrown around. We will assist them with their investigations wherever possible."

The way some of them speak about people on there, it may just come to that.
Have a nice day stalkers!

Quote
tara34 (334 ) 7:44 am, Wed 22 Jun #1

Oh well, at least now it has become evident that TM are beginning to understand what board harassment is. They're a little confused about defamation, as can be shown by its context of use above, also that there is a definition under the Harassment Act 1987 between 'civil' and criminal harassment and it may only be the later under which the Police could possibly act. But the message is getting through if not all the content. The poster above is clearly having trouble with stalkers, and as in the past I always invite anyone to write here regarding message board stalking anywhere, I will keep any information confidential if asked, and may be able to offer some help as to how the Law might help.

Credit due to TM, after many years they're slowly getting the picture as to what their responsibilities as publishers are (despite still trying to water those responsibilities down with qualified denial.) Bad news of course for those that have ended up in the Courts because TM don't monitor their boards properly to curtail stalking as soon as it begins, as inevitably that inaction encouraged the behaviour of the stalkers, that and sheer idiocy - but no one is really concerned for them (the stalkers,) except themselves.

I don't think anybody disagrees that Trade Me's board rules have been tweaked..

They said so themselves.
Within the new protocol is the specific 'don't abuse or harass people,' additionally that the boards are not a place 'for you to attack a person or their character.' The tweaks set out privacy issues for board members, just in case some board users are stalkers, like the sisters, who think they have propriety rights over other board members, their families and friends as well. Not a bad point really, but obviously a situation that preceded the 'tweaking' of the rules.
So the question remains, were those that Trade Me allowed to break the law before TM 'tweaked' the rules acting illegally, and if so why didn't TM take action earlier?
Those are issues that remain that TM will obviously be required to remedy.

Whoops Trade Me, looks like there is such a thing as defamatory harassment afterall.

If a point of law lives before the Courts it becomes a precedent, whether if fails or succeeds and eventually is polished into a life of its own. At the moment there is recognition that if people deliberately lie about another on a message board, such as Trade Me, or continue to target a person or their family in a way likely to cause them to feel harmed or harassed then an offence is committed under the common law by both the speaker and the publisher.

It's a very welcome advance as far as I'm concerned to know that if a 'men' like Bill Rodie and Ralph Taylor, publish day after day lies on a message board, then both they and the message board owner maintain a liability. That's very fair, and it's the way it works in the traditional media, it's something that protects people, it's the Courts recognising that in the real world a person, or a person's family cannot be stalked or harassed by anonymous creeps, have their children and family discussed by lurking strangers. Equally importantly it recognises that whatever a person says publicly, by way of message board or not, they have a responsibility to the truth when in fact what they write can impact negatively on the lives of others, and if they're not sure of the truth that they should button their lips because what they speak may be what bites them later. Who could ever promote the idea that the world is not a better place when inhabitated by the truth?

One of the words of the moment is 'inaction.' Trade Me may have fallen about laughing by the situation that 'inaction' could constitute a liability, when they stop giggling perhaps they should research situations where not providing the necessities of life or not assisting someone in peril (being 'inactive') or the probably even more common suit that might address lawbreakers 'act or omission' are recognised as components of offending. Actually, TM may not actually be falling about laughing and could be questioning the quality of their legal advice.

Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.

The following taken from the JFRB thread shows the continuing narration of defamatory harassment against Karam and Bain.
You must be acutely aware that members of the hate-site JFRB continue to use TM. The example below has no factual basis but for the average reader presents as highly significant and 'truthful.' But the hate-sites don't use TM boards to report truth but only to harass and defame others.
TM continually allow material to be printed that brings the Justice System into disrepute and allow 'reporting' of 'facts' that is probably Contempt of Court. In doing so TM reward messengers of hate with a free publishing venue. TM are sharply aware of this not only because of writs against TM for defamation, but also because TM are aware of writs against members of the hate-sites for not only defamation but also harassment and stalking. Some of the hate-site members have publicly confessed to stalking Jury members and others on TM boards such is their confidence that they are supported in their endeavours by TM who also happen to be likewise defendants in proceedings in the High Court.
You are also aware that members of the hate-sites have intimidated and frightened into silence some TM members who views on the Bain case they do not share.
I have no objection to the truth being debated on the boards, or opinions arising from the truth but that isn't and has never been the agenda of the hate-sites, theirs is to lie and poison.
If you will respond in no other way to this complaint, then just explain why you allow the same people to day in day out, year after year spread messages of hate on your site about the subject of the Bain killings/suicide?
Below you even have the report of a half-wit as to his own 'investigation' that however fails to deal with the actual evidence given at the trial. Meanwhile William Rodie (Sophie) continues in the same vein as when he posted as kirkmaiden and others, just lie after lie, after lie. Do TM and yourself a favour and get rid of the bullshitting scumbags who bump the thread in an effort to promote redemption for a person considered by many (including myself) as a paedophile who killed his family. Most importantly David Bain was found not guilty 2 years ago following a trial which has not been contested, TM or the hate-sites are not elevated about the Justice System but must abide to it and at the very least raise criticisms that are researched, and true or defendable.

steve1958 wrote:

The whole defense was based solely on hearsay's . Even their own investigation found that Robin couldn't have used that rifle to commit suicide .

You are right of course Steve the defence selected not to use the evidence and opinion "requested by a member of Davids Bains defence" from the Victorian Police Forensic Science Department that concluded Robin had not committed suicide.

Edited by sophier8 at 10:54 am, Sun 5 Jun

Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 10:50 am, Sun 5 Jun #32316


Yours etc

So if a message board owner operates a site

which publishes defamatory material over a long period of time about a certain individual or individuals, having been told to cease and desist, and having been told (thanks Linz4me) that a particular group are using the publication opportunity to breach the law, stalk other board users and their families, with the intended purpose of defamatory harassment, likely to incite hatred and most probably violence - do the board owners (and their attendant defamatory users) rate higher on the damages scale if successfully sued? The answer has to be yes.

I've already seen from TM some head in the sand stuff about responsibility, ducking and diving, a keen propensity to lay blame elsewhere (anywhere in fact it seems, such is the level of self-preservation.) Added to the mix are self-defeating arguments that TM, as an example, are not a publisher, although they employ 'moderaters' - a modern term for editors, who pass judgement on editorial comment of a number of types, including (yes) defamation.

I've got an idea for TM, if they don't want to be seen as publishers and editors, then don't have moderators and don't have rules about what may or may not be posted - don't sit in the middle, a bob each way, and expect anything other than scrutiny of what they actually are - an Internet publisher. Oh goodness how sad for TM. They only made a profit of 93 million in 2009 and yet they don't have the 'resources' to pre-edit anything published on their boards.

I'll believe that just like I believe in squadrons of under resourced pigs flying over. But then the mixture becomes more obscure because their site of publication is called 'Community' like a message board in a supermarket or letters to the editor in a rural newspaper. They want to be members of a big happy family and ignore that some of the 'kids' are out stalking, threatening people and their families and posting defamatory comment and suppressed material - how simply cutey pie, all sort of homely. And big daddy will say 'I had no idea it was going on.' How very sweet, poor big daddy, so busy rolling the dollars in they he didn't know the 'kids' were playing up, stalking a Jury and witnesses or he would have done something except it wouldn't be his job because he's busy doing something.

The thing about corporates, Governments, even dictatorships, is that they have a natural life and at some point the boss gets pushed, because it's easier that way, because the boss wasn't doing his job, hadn't kept abreast with Internet law for example, the role of publisher etc (or he/she had extended things to a sound position, and yes it was/is time for someone else to 'take over') and the company or the country need a new direction and fresh ideas and everything is jolly jolly. It's all such fun I might eat an apple.