Why report so much ?

Oh that's bad Rosie, I lost track of it at the time.

Doodledog ✅

I don't know what you are talking about in this case, Jaxjacky, but I am aware that anonymity can bring out the worst in people, and know (from personal experience) of just how nasty people can be online. Something very unpleasant happened to me a while ago (not on GN) and it's not something you forget. I am still quite wary as a result, and notice when people ask for things to be deleted, when they say they never report but then threaten to do it, when they disappear to get rid of an unpleasant history then return and behave exactly as before but with a clean slate - for me that sort of thing is a red flag not to trust them.

I don't think that deleting PMs will mean that GN can't read them though - there will be regular backups taken as a matter of course. All the same, I would always advise people to keep copies of dodgy PMs, just in case.

I agree Doodledog and the legal information is appreciated.
From a human perspective I was just pointing out that some people are very devious, it’s worth a screen shot if you feel maligned.
Responding to the OP Lucca who posed the ‘why report’ question.

I was just posting the legal position, not defending online malice.

Galaxy

I think that's quite an untested area, there was a case on MN where there was a legal request for the posters details. I cant remember what happened with that one to be honest.

In the case of the only one I'm aware of, the details were given and the police interviewed the poster. No crime had been committed. No further action was taken by the police at that time, but MN banned the poster.

That’s all very well Doodledog but when someone does make malicious posts, posts blatant lies about another person, then asks HQ to delete them and deletes their own nasty pm’s what is the target of such an attack supposed to do?
All evidence has been removed, the originator then garners support for an invented situation when the target aims to respond, it’s extremely hurtful.
None of us know the true nature of people who post under another name.

Thanks Doodledog. So there we have it in our own hands -if we post items that break the law then we are personally liable, so no different really from face to face or other means of communication.

I feel that some people think that because their real names are hidden from the posts, they become invisible and so can say whatever they like. That's fine, providing its what they would say if they were face to face or posting under their own name and prepared to defend themselves if questioned. And of course we are all traceable.

Thanks doodledog.

So based on that, GN is not liable to prosecution unless they deliberately and knowingly encourage malicious remarks or allow them to remain online after they have been told of their existence. It is up to us to ensure that what we say breaks no laws, as it is we who are liable.

There is no legal duty on website operators to moderate their websites against defamatory posts by third party users. If a website operator decides to moderate their website, they may not automatically incur liability for defamation even if they make slight amendments to the original post. However, in case of an interactive website, where the role of the moderator is prominent in facilitating discussions, website operators may risk being held liable to their own posts or to posts that encourage defamatory conversations. In such case, a website operator might also be held liable to comments by other users of the discussion forum if it can be shown that they had encouraged or deliberately prompted the post of defamatory statements against the victim.

From www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/legal-liability-of-review-website-operators-in-the-uk

Also:
If you post on a forum online, you are legally liable for your remarks if any liability arises from them. Accordingly, if you post defamatory material, which is false and is defamatory of someone, you can be successfully sued. Similarly, if your remarks are malicious and untrue, then you can be sued for malicious falsehood. If your remarks infringe any prohibition on hate crimes, then you can be prosecuted. The forum administrator may also be liable. However, it is a good defence in a defamation action for a forum administrator to show that they removed the offending defamatory material at the first opportunity when the defamatory content was brought to their attention. Additionally, a forum administrator cannot be held liable for malicious falsehood as they did not utter or create the words maliciously. Similarly, a forum administrator cannot be prosecuted for hate crimes as the forum merely hosted or presented another person's content. So ultimately, it is the person who posts the remarks who has primary legal responsibility, not the forum, although the forum may have liability if it does not promptly remove the infringing or offending remarks.

from www.justanswer.com/ireland-law/5xrn7-responsible-when-post-forum-online.html

Maybe that would help reduce offensive posts, if everyone was made aware that legal action could be taken, if that is the case.

Can anyone else throw any more light on this aspect?

I think that's quite an untested area, there was a case on MN where there was a legal request for the posters details. I cant remember what happened with that one to be honest.

Galaxy

Also GN would be left open to legal action if they left certain posts to stand.

Hi galaxy, if that were the case, would the person who posted not be liable to legal action too?

Also GN would be left open to legal action if they left certain posts to stand.

Oh well, I guess I will just need to follow the current rules, along with everyone else.

Well Baggytrazzas I ve been on here 11 years ( I think) and haven’t a clue what anyone is on about
No idea who’s being bullied or whos bullying who and I post and read Gn every day I must have my head in the clouds Not a clue what’s going on all over my head

Sometimes a post is really nasty to an individual or is homophobic or racist etc.
I think those really do need to be removed, even if others have commented in the way you say Baggytrazzas.

I agree, it is all something and nothing. Personally, ( apart from the adverts I sometimes see) it would need to be truly awful for me to report anything anyone else had written. I would be much more likely to respond to the poster along the lines of " that's seems harsh/unacceptable/etc". But of course that is not following the gnhq rules as I should be reporting it to them and not taking it up with poster.

I think I need to learn more about gnhq and the posters!

If the name was removed, we'd probably have days of people guessing who it could have been.
Then telling them they should have the guts to own up, and so on.

It's all something and nothing, really.

oh well, I guess we will continue to see the argy bargying when someone accuses another person of reporting them and it is denied, and so on, and the rest of us don't know what was wrong with the post as we can't see it. It just seems to me that it would be much clearer if we could all share the info in question, possibly without the names of the poster or reporter, and therefore we would know what not to do.
But I accept your point about it suiting gnhq so you are right it will probably continue on their terms whether we could propose something different or not.

I think the system works well "as is".
Only my opinion, though.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, though, gransnet will be run in a way that suits gnhq, not the members, so it's a moot point.

maybe the post could remain in place for guidance, with the persons name removed, for example?