D SQDRN 97th IOTC
In the event there were to be active proceedings, I doubt very much that some of the more pejorative and uninformed posts on this forum would find themselves being used in those proceedings.
Doubt very much?
There are no circumstances in which any posts from this or any other forum could be used in legal proceedings. That is not the risk about which I expressed concern.
So whilst one might have the view that some posts here push the limits of decency, the law does little to deter such posts.
Little?
There are currently no active proceedings so, currently, there is no reason
in law that such posts should not be made/published nor quoted in the press. That was not my point.
The legal position would change if legal proceedings were to be commenced.
ie If the pilot was to be arrested or charged.
(I agree broadly with your reference to decency except that I consider that several posts have gone way beyond the limits of decency.)
----------
If anyone is interested, I gave the advice below to PPRuNe Admin in the days when I used to help behind the scenes with legal matters. It relates to active proceedings.
In the UK, the press are entitled to report evidence given by witnesses (factual and expert) but they are not permitted to comment upon it, nor to express opinions about the guilt/innocence of the defendant.
I'd be surprised if the rules are significantly different in other developed jurisdictions.
Contempt of Court Act 1981
Sections 1 and 2 create a strict liability rule which makes it a contempt of court to publish anything to the public which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, even if there is no intent to cause such prejudice.
Ignorance of the law (or, where applicable, the existence of a specific reporting restriction or its terms) is no defence.
The strict liability rule applies to all publications, which is defined very widely as including “any speech, writing, or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large”.
Accordingly the strict liability rule is relevant not only to newspapers and broadcasters but also to online media and individual users of social media websites.
The strict liability applies once proceedings are active, which means that the relevant initial step must have been taken, such as placing a suspect under arrest, or charging him/her.
Whether or not proceedings for contempt of court could be successfully brought against the site owners should, in my opinion, be a secondary consideration; fairness to someone on trial is far more important.
Given the name of this website, I think we have a particular responsibility in aviation cases. Casual readers and journalists often assume that people who post here are professional pilots. As we know, many are not - and even those who are sometimes post nonsense.
If this site is an accurate reflection of the aviation industry then pilots are very quick (far too quick IMHO) to criticise/blame fellow pilots - and to pontificate about what the pilot or crew concerned should/should not have done. (Contrary to popular belief, that unfortunate tendency is shared by lawyers.)
eg- Speculation following an accident is almost invariably critical of the pilot(s) involved.
- There is never a shortage of self-righteous posters who say a pilot should lose his licence, never be allowed to fly again etc etc.
There is too often an unfortunate tendency to focus upon the potential consequences for contributors/PPRuNe rather than upon the potentially very damaging consequences (legal or other) for people who have been criticised/pilloried on a public website.
Not using someone's name is irrelevant if he/she can readily be identified from the context.