I do not believe there is a posted policy regarding taking down slander, however I would think the forum would allow it as long as it is not obvious trolling. The forum has a policy against moderating scams, so if they were to moderate scam accusations then they would essentially be endorsing whatever it is that you are doing and in effect saying that you are not scamming when it is not 100% sure that you are not going to scam in the future.
This is as close as it gets:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=787267.0Do you think you could update
this thread to say something along the lines "FUD and insults are not moderated as long as they are not trolling"? This post is a sticky in the altcoin subforum, but I would think that many people (myself included) do not regularly visit this subforum when they visit
bitcointalk.org
I already did a while ago:
Q: Do you moderate/delete (possible) FUD, accusations and untrue information?
A: No. We don't have enough time to check every single piece of information and verify the validity of the sources. Also, just like scams - too much room for bias and abuse.
I was actually referring to the part that has the numerated rules, but I guess the FAQ section works too.
You do have one numerated rule that says that scams are not moderated, so I though that this could be added to this point.
19. Possible (or real) scams and Trust ratings are not moderated (to prevent moderation abuse).
I do not think there is precedent of slander of an online identity that is not your "real" identity. I do not think that slander exemptions to freedom of speech would extend to an online identity. Even if you are not conducting business the court would likely find that an online identity is similar to a business name which is not subject to slander protections.
Interesting point. I guess there is some truth to this as it's easy to 'change' this identity on other fora by simply deleting your account and moving to a different username.
Looking at this website:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander It appears that in order to recover damages for libel you need to be able to prove what was said was referring directly to you (as the plaintiff of a case). Lets says for example that your real name is
John Smith (there is no reason to use actual real names in this conversation). If your name is John Smith then you would likely not have standing to sue as
Boxman90, but would need to sue as
John Smith. Unless you can find something that a reasonable person could use to tie
Boxman90 and
John Smith as being one and the same, then you would likely not be able to recover damages.
In regards to someone being called a criminal, this would almost never be considered slander because everyone has likely broken the law in some way (for example because of speeding - even if you are not found guilty in court of a crime does not mean you did not break the law - if you have broken the law then you are a criminal).
I think it is considered slander though, as you're only a criminal once convicted for a crime. By your definition, everyone is a criminal - but speeding and the likes, while it is a breach of the law, is not a crime - it's a misdemeanor and something you won't get a criminal record for. Therefore mentioning one's identity and stating for a fact he/she is a criminal without him/her ever being convicted of anything, is slander.
The definition of criminal is
crim·i·nal
ˈkrimənl/
noun
1.
a person who has committed a crime.
Source:
https://www.google.com/#q=define+criminalThe defination of crime is:
crime
krīm/
noun
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
Source:
https://www.google.com/#q=define+crimePer the above definition you do not need to actually be convicted of a crime to be considered to be a criminal. I believe that shows like America's Most Wanted often refer to people as criminals before they are convicted.
Speeding is actually usually an
infraction in most states, which is one level lower then a misdemeanor, but infractions are still punishable by law via fines when found guilty (or plead guilty/no contest) to such crime. So yes, by my definition everyone is a criminal. For that reason anyone that calls someone else a criminal without additional information as to what crimes you have committed in the past would not be able to do any actual damage to your reputation.
Also after further research, what you are describing as happening is actually libel, not slander (libel is written defamation while slander is oral defamation).
I do not think there is precedent of slander of an online identity that is not your "real" identity. I do not think that slander exemptions to freedom of speech would extend to an online identity. Even if you are not conducting business the court would likely find that an online identity is similar to a business name which is not subject to slander protections.
Interesting point. I guess there is some truth to this as it's easy to 'change' this identity on other fora by simply deleting your account and moving to a different username.
Looking at this website:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander It appears that in order to recover damages for libel you need to be able to prove what was said was referring directly to you (as the plaintiff of a case). Lets says for example that your real name is
John Smith (there is no reason to use actual real names in this conversation). If your name is John Smith then you would likely not have standing to sue as
Boxman90, but would need to sue as
John Smith. Unless you can find something that a reasonable person could use to tie
Boxman90 and
John Smith as being one and the same, then you would likely not be able to recover damages.
EDIT: fixed broken quote
