Changes to the Richard Dawkins Forum

  • Thread starter pftest
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Forum
In summary: This is what is happening to the RichardDawkins.net website. The forum has been terminated, and all posts will be deleted within 30 days. This is because the forum has been overwhelmed with posts from people who are angry and hostile, rather than constructive. We have almost the same number of posts as physicsforums, and our members are feeling alienated. In summary, the forum is being terminated because of the negative effect it is having on its members.
  • #71
Aquafire said:
One of the dangers Richard Dawkins faces & that has not been discussed is Libel.

English Law is the toughest, (some would say draconian) in all of Europe.

If you besmirch someones reputation online, chances are you will be on the end of a writ.

By appending his name to the forums, many a lawyer could argue quite successfully, that Prof Dawkins would be liable for any libelous comments posted under his name.

He would be called upon to show a duty of care to prevent such material being posted.

One need only look at the imbroglio swamping Simon Singh to see the consequences of this matter.

Code:
[PLAIN]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/29/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation
[/PLAIN]

What are you talking about? Are you saying people are saying things about Dawkins or that Dawkins is saying things about others?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
zomgwtf said:
What are you talking about? Are you saying people are saying things about Dawkins or that Dawkins is saying things about others?

Sorry if my meaning is not clear.

Under English Libel law, Professor Dawkins is taken to be party to any comments that posters to his forums may make in relation to other persons.

So for instance if one of Professor Dawkins supporters were to post comments against a living person & that person were to read those comments and take offence : then Professor Dawkins would have to explain why he allowed such comments to be posted.

Naturally, if the moderators catch such libelous comments and delete them within a minute or two of them being posted, then that is a defence .. but not a complete one.

If the moderators / admistrators allowed those comments to stay online to be read by all and sundry, then it would be argued by a prosecutor that Professor Dawkins is complicit in that he did nothing to remove such comments.

Likewise, if someone makes libelous comments about Mr Dawkins, then he is well within his legal rights to sue for libel as well.

The injured party is relative to the injury.

If your the one being injured by libelous comments, comments that are untrue, or a fabrication, then you have the right to appeal to the courts of the land to have those comments / remarks removed.

Failure to do so, leaves the perpetrator or supporter of those libelous actions open to court remedies.
 
  • #73
Aquafire said:
Under English Libel law, Professor Dawkins is taken to be party to any comments that posters to his forums may make in relation to other persons.

We require citing sources here.
 
  • #74
zomgwtf said:
We require citing sources here.

Here is a list of ten things you might want to consider.

http://www.website-law.co.uk/resources/website-libel.html"

And of particular interest to this thread.

The professor (Richard Dawkins) accepted that companies and individuals had a right to redress if they were maliciously attacked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkins-libel-laws"

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,4343,Libel-laws-silence-scientists,Richard-Dawkins---guardiancouk,page2"

You don't think that Richard Dawkins has taken legal advice ?

Or do you seriously think he lives in a bubble...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #75
First off there's no need for you to be coming at me hostilely.
Aquafire said:
Here is a list of ten things you might want to consider.

http://www.website-law.co.uk/resources/website-libel.html"

No where in this article on '10 things webmasters should know about... libel' does it back up your claim. Specifically:
"Under English Libel law, Professor Dawkins is taken to be party to any comments that posters to his forums may make in relation to other persons."

The closest it comes to is the 'hosting' part. However Dawkins is presumably not hosting the material on his website. I'm pretty sure he pays for hosting by another company, which I believe is Slice Host located in Saint Louis. Regardless, there is something called the ToS which you have to accept in order to join or post at such a forum community.

And of particular interest to this thread.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkins-libel-laws"

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,4343,Libel-laws-silence-scientists,Richard-Dawkins---guardiancouk,page2"

You don't think that Richard Dawkins has taken legal advice ?

Or do you seriously think he lives in a bubble...?
Who ever claimed that Dawkins hadn't taken legal advice or that he lived in a bubble? This is very dishonest of you and it's taking a lot of will power for me to refrain from saying many rude things to you.

By the way, neither of those stories have anything to do with Dawkins seeking 'legal advice' in regard to the posting on the forums... or anything to do with the forums...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
293
Views
32K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
19K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
995
Replies
13
Views
755
Back
Top