# The Ubuntu Forum Community > Ubuntu Community Discussions > Resolution Centre >  Illegal Conduct of the Modulators

## Kilon

First of all I am a lawyer , exercising law at Greece with my own law office while I have studied in UK for 5 years law, and a have a LLM (Master degree) In UK and European Commercial and E-Commercial law. 

I have discovered illegal behavior from the part of the modulators of this site. The recent example is the banning of PMASIAR. 

I have to make here clear that banning a person is a clear violation of the INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS of HUMAN RIGHTS. This Legislation have been implemented in many countries and especially in EUROPEAN UNION. It protects basic human right and one of those rights is the Freedom of Speech. 

Limiting freedom of speech under most national legislations is strictly illegal. When a person in banned because of the things he says , unless his motivating illegal conduct , is illegal. Fight and Flamewars are perfectly ok for the law. Silencing them by force is not ok. IT IS ILEGAL!!!

Even if the person is rude , even if the person is personally attacking another person . The law says that you ca do this thing , on one hand but also offers protection to people who receive attacks and untruthful allegation. 

BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES THE LAW ALLOWS A PERSON TO SILENCE ANOTHER PERSON. There is wealth of case that clearly defines this and of course of enormous amount cases. IN some countries like mine , is considered a constitutional right and followed vigorously.  

In the case of pmasiar, even if I feel that his conduct some times is abit too passionate, I have not found any behaviour that could trigger the mechanism of law against him. What he did might not be the best behaviour , but was not illegal in any case. Banning we the purpose of silencing him is of course illegal. 

Please take note of my opinion . It make me sad to make these claims but I have seen similar practices in other forums and when something happens pretty much anywhere people start to believe that is legal. Which is not. 

I do not know if this post will get me banned or not . And personally I do not care. However I want to make a statement to the modulators that their conduct is not acceptable , and especially not tolerated.  

PS: This post has been copied and stored in my hard drive in the case of deletion as legal evidence. I have no intention of legal action against the forum. But I also do not like my posts be deleted.

----------


## Flyingjester

whew this made me sweat.. good thing this is the internet, which is bound by no national law, and has a terms of use huh?

----------


## Kilon

> whew this made me sweat.. good thing this is the internet, which is bound by no national law, and has a terms of use huh?


ACTUALLY IT IS BOUND BY 2 laws at least.

1) NATIONAL LAW

2) INTERNATIONAL LAW

optional

3) EUROPEAN LAW , where applicable

----------


## leg

What about the people pmasier has abused with his rants? Do they not have any rights. What does the law say about allowing intimidation and bullying to occur?

----------


## Bölvaður

code of conduct of using this website probably get some people banned. silly things like revealing the identity of admins....





> # If the thread is flame-bait (appears to be intended to start an argument or is likely to cause an argument rather than enhance discussion), it will be locked or removed without notice. Individual flame-bait may be deleted or edited at the moderators' discretion. Any users who continue to post in this manner or engage in other questionable practices, like trolling (posting in an attempt to engage people in arguments) may be subject to more serious sanctions.


if you are a real lawer that is experienced you would not fail at spotting this in their code of conduct for using these forums. it is clearly stated that he could be facing something more than only his threads removed.

----------


## Flyingjester

agreed, so i suppose you could petition the government of isle of man (where the domain is registered to) and see if they would like to file a charge against the website, or you can file it from your home country, in which case the owners have no obligation to show up unless extridited there. I think both senarios are unlikely, especially considering it is an internet website that provides free technical support, and as such there has been no breach of contract, nor is there a gauruntee for admittance as you have to register.not only that there is a code of conduct, if the privately owned website feels that a person breaks this code, then they can ban them.

----------


## Brynster

LOL can you say troll?

----------


## Kilon

> What about the people pmasier has abused with his rants? Do they not have any rights. What does the law say about allowing intimidation and bullying to occur?


of course they have rights. And they have the right to call legal proceedings. They have no right to silence the person attack them by themselves. But the court may silence him for them. In any case however this power is vested to the courts and police not individuals, even if they are titled Modulators.

----------


## Vorian

Moved to the Resolution Center:

Only the OP and Forum Council may utilize this thread from this point on.

----------


## Kilon

> Moved to the Resolution Center:
> 
> Only the OP and Forum Council may utilize this thread from this point on.


I have nothing more to add. My intention was to inform the modulators and the forum as a whole. I offered my legal advice the same way a doctor would offer his help free of charge to an injured person in the street.

----------


## matthew

> I have to make here clear that banning a person is a clear violation of the INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS of HUMAN RIGHTS.


This was my favorite part. Thank you.

Here is my response:

The user you refer to, in fact every forum member who has signed up for an account in this privately owned (i.e. not government owned, not public) forum has agreed to abide by a code of conduct. Here is an applicable quote. You may read the full code at your leisure.




> By registering and participating in Ubuntu Forums discussions you agree to the following code of conduct. If you are unable to agree you have the right not to participate in forum discussions at any time.
> 
> While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible where acceptable, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or web-master (except for posts by these people) and they will not be held liable.
> 
> 
>   You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated material or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing any of these may lead to you being temporarily or permanently banned from these forums (and your service provider may also be informed). 
> 
> Posts which violate any part of this Code of Conduct may be edited or moved to a special holding area called "The Jail." Posts in The Jail are only visible to staff members and the original poster. 
> 
> If you were to continue to break this code of conduct your account would be reviewed and you could be banned. It is the sole discretion of the forum resolution team (currently the administrators) to ban violating accounts. As of March 13, 2007, accounts will not be deleted, although email addresses can be removed from accounts by request if the account is not going to be used any longer.


pmsiar has a long record of warnings. He has been talked to politely. He has received clear reminders about what is and is not acceptable behavior here. He chose not to heed them. I have nothing else to say.

----------


## Kilon

> This was my favorite part. Thank you.
> 
> Here is my response:
> 
> The user you refer to, in fact every forum member who has signed up for an account in this privately owned (i.e. not government owned, not public) forum has agreed to abide by a code of conduct. Here is an applicable quote. You may read the full code at your leisure.


First of all I must inform you that your code of conduct , is not binding to issues that are enforced by law. In short where your COC and law conflict , law always wins. There is no way a person can cancel his legal rights as freedom of speech even if he agrees to . Those rights are mandatory. However there some legal rights that can be canceled if the person agrees to (for example copyright , in some special cases). However freedom of speech cannot be canceled. 

Secondly even if we are talking other rights here that also are stated in COC , this is open to legal discussion. In this area things are not clear legally. One legal opinion is that COC are acceptable by the law  and considered legal documents with all the protection law offers to any kind of document . In this situation the person is bound by the COC. 

On the other hand, the other hand is that COC and similar "I Accept this Term and Conditions" documents (excluding electronic contracts) are not legal document because there is no intention to  be bound by them , even if it click the button of acceptance. It is just a routine process that does in order to use services and products. In this situation , COC is nothing more than text with no legal substance.

Both opinions are open to legal discussion and will depend upon national case law and legislation.  As far as I know it still is a big dispute in E-Commerce law. 





> pmsiar has a long record of warnings. He has been talked to politely. He has received clear reminders about what is and is not acceptable behavior here. He chose not to heed them. I have nothing else to say.


I am not here to discuss , why and how . You have the right of personal opinion and respect that. 

I posted only to point the legal aspect of the matter. If law said otherwise , I would not have posted in the first place.

----------


## matthew

This individual's freedom of speech has not been removed. He is free to post his thoughts and opinions on his personal blog, and thousands of other places all over the internet. That's a straw man argument.

An apt analogy is that this forum is similar to a personal home, albeit a large and unusual one. If I were to visit your home, I would expect to conduct myself in a respectful and appropriate manner. If you don't want someone to smoke in your house, then I would most definitely choose to smoke elsewhere. If you prefer not to have a television in the room where you entertain guests, I would not demand one. Should you choose to serve me a meal, I would not demand that you allow me to bring my own spices and sauces from outside to flavor it. However, none of these eliminates my right to do otherwise elsewhere.

The code of conduct is not a legal document. In that, you are quite correct. It is a statement by the administration of what we expect, made in order to create less stress and more freedom. When one knows what the community finds reasonable and acceptable, it is easier to concentrate on actual topics of discussion because you don't have the lingering concern, "What if I'm doing it wrong?"

Choosing to apply laws designed to protect rights in the public arena to private situations is inappropriate. Sorry. 

We really do have the right to tell anyone to leave for any reason, or even for no reason. We have simply chosen to limit our rights by stating under what circumstances we will choose to exercise them.

----------


## Kilon

> This individual's freedom of speech has not been removed. He is free to post his thoughts and opinions on his personal blog, and thousands of other places all over the internet. That's a straw man argument.
> 
> An apt analogy is that this forum is similar to a personal home, albeit a large and unusual one. If I were to visit your home, I would expect to conduct myself in a respectful and appropriate manner. If you don't want someone to smoke in your house, then I would most definitely choose to smoke elsewhere. If you prefer not to have a television in the room where you entertain guests, I would not demand one. Should you choose to serve me a meal, I would not demand that you allow me to bring my own spices and sauces from outside to flavor it. However, none of these eliminates my right to do otherwise elsewhere.
> 
> The code of conduct is not a legal document. In that, you are quite correct. It is a statement by the administration of what we expect, made in order to create less stress and more freedom. When one knows what the community finds reasonable and acceptable, it is easier to concentrate on actual topics of discussion because you don't have the lingering concern, "What if I'm doing it wrong?"
> 
> Choosing to apply laws designed to protect rights in the public arena to private situations is inappropriate. Sorry. 
> 
> We really do have the right to tell anyone to leave for any reason, or even for no reason. We have simply chosen to limit our rights by stating under what circumstances we will choose to exercise them.



You seem to confuse the legal principles. The fact that this is "your" Forum does not allow you to shield yourselves from the law. 


You seem to think that just because this is your "home" (which of course is not in legal terms) law does not apply here. Which is not true. You took the example of a visitor that comes to your house . Yes you can show the door to a visitor. There is the right of Home protection , sorry that the legal terminology escape me. Unfortunately a website is not a home. Homes have special protection by the International Convention of Human Rights and individual by national laws. 

And even in a home you cannot silence someone from expressing their opinion. But unlike a home there is no right to send someone away. 


Also do not confuse a website with a real property , like land property you own. Websites are completely different legal entities. That is why there is special legislation that surrounds them. At some point in the past , electronic documents were not considered real documents. Fortunately today there is special legislation that says so. Unfortunately internet falls outside the scope of traditional legal definition, but fortunately there have been enough legislation to clarify these issues. 

Even in the Case of COC , I never said that it is not a legal document.  I Just said that it is open to dispute for specific legal arguments .

In any case the law does not give you "police" forces . Do you have the right to send people away? No you definitely do not.Only in the case of illegal behavior . In that case not only you have the right but you obliged to send him away and report him to any authorities.  

IF you find any law that gives you this right , then I will be the first to be interested in learning this law, even if it does not apply in my country or European union.

----------


## matthew

> sorry that the legal terminology escape me


Hmm...you are coming on pretty strong for someone who can't remember legal terminology. I would think a lawyer would do his research before making public statements.

Since these forums are hosted in Great Britain, there is some relevant documentation here: 

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/

The document pertaining to freedom of speech is here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

Part III article 19 states



> 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. *It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions*, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
> 
> (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
> 
> (b) For the protection of national security *or of public order* (ordre public), or of public health or morals.


Emphasis added. Obviously, public order is established and maintained in these forums by the clearly stated and posted code of conduct.

Your argument is unconvincing.

----------


## matthew

For further reading, here's a U.S.A. centric view as well:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/1st-Amend...g-Internet.htm

http://halfbytes.blogspot.com/2007/0...ee-speech.html

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5234

----------


## matthew

Only remotely related, but still related because the foundation of the argument is identical.

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives..._engines_3.htm

http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case458.cfm

----------


## Kilon

> Hmm...you are coming on pretty strong for someone who can't remember legal terminology. I would think a lawyer would do his research before making public statements.


Well it has been 6 years since the last time I studied English law so you will excuse me. 





> (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.





> Emphasis added. Obviously, public order is established and maintained in these forums by the clearly stated and posted code of conduct.


Who gives you the right to establish and maintain ? these rights are provided to police forces and enforced by the courts.
There is appropriate legislation and do not appear out of thin air. 


 Also you need to understand that here the law says nothing about forums or anything else, you have to read relevant case law . Especially for English Law which is case law driven. Here the law implies local authorities and not individuals. That is why National security is mentioned and not personal security , public health and not personal health, public morals not personal morals.

no section (b) does not apply here for you. 

However section (a) is far more interesting. Remember what I said earlier, that ban is legal if the conduct is illegal. When a person is speaking against the reputation of another person. Then yes it has some ground of  legally   ban him or be obliged by law to do so. 

But even this area is very blur. Especially Uk had a huge issue with gossip magazines which have been subject to many sue cause they disclosed personal information about people that they had nor write to . There freedom of expression and freedom of press was discussed vigorously but the courts failed to apply section (a) . 

The reasoning is quite complicate , cause freedom of speech is very difficult to define  as is the legal meaning of "reputation". When someone really injures the reputation of a person ? What happens when it claims are true ? Those are difficult issue which give limited application to section (a).     





> Your argument is unconvincing


I am not posting to convince you , I am posting to explain the law. 

Thank you for the links, I appreciate that you took the time to search for them . I will read them carefully tomorrow that I will have more free time, with a lot of interest.

----------


## matthew

Again, the straw man has appeared.

Escorting someone out of a forum is not akin to removing their right to free speech. He is still free to make his own website and say what he wants to say there. He is still free to walk on to public property and speak his mind.

Your entire argument hinges on whether or not his right to free speech has been impinged. It has not.

----------


## KiwiNZ

You play cricket and you breach the law pertaining , your club may expel you . You play Rugby and you breach the law pertaining , your club may expel you. Your break the code of conduct at your employment and your employer may dismiss you.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is to do do with standards of conduct presented and agreed to being not complied with.

----------


## matthew

I have another analogy that you might find helpful.

Private businesses have, and most reserve, the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. This is not true of governments, and may or may not be true of publicly traded corporations, but it is certainly true of private businesses.

Imagine if the local pub couldn't throw out a disorderly drunk. In that case, the owner would have obvious and just cause. The same would be true of people who didn't pay their bills, who were being overly amorous with the staff, and a number of unforeseeable behaviors that would not be desirable. He could throw someone out for yelling or singing loudly. He could do it because someone talked incessantly. He could throw people out for disrupting the business in any way whatsoever. He would even be in his rights to do it because he didn't like the color of the guy's clothes, although that would likely cause him problems with other customers, because they would lose respect for him and also become concerned about their own welcome.

We have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason.

We have chosen not to be arbitrary, but have instead encoded our expectations in the code of conduct to give our members a way to feel secure in their memberships, and to let everyone know as best as is possible in advance what is and is not acceptable. We have left some leeway in the wording because sometimes something happens that cannot be anticipated, but as to the things which may be reasonably expected, everyone has a clear statement of what will happen.

----------


## KiwiNZ

The rules applied to these forums are acted upon by the staff  pro bono publico and the staff have not acted ultra vires.

The Code of Conduct and the terms of joining are res ipsa loquitur

----------

