Cooperation amongst web sites.

Joe Chetcuti Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:12 pm

A few years ago we watched with disgust when the authenticity of the Littlechild Letter was oddly challenged on the message boards of two Ripper web sites. The same feeling of bitterness gets experienced whenever we see a defamatory lie get posted on a thread. In most cases a justifiable retaliatory response usually ensues from the victimized party. From there, the matter often escalates into a war of words that are posted for all to see.

The blame for this should not get placed on the lap of the person who was unjustly defamed and had rightfully defended himself. Nor should the burden of blame be dropped at the feet of the web site administrator who actively seeks a long-lasting resolution to the problem. Instead, guilt finds its home with the instigators who perpetrate these acts of slander. And a portion of that same guilt is shared by the web site administrators who either deem these calumnies to be acceptable or who peculiarly choose to muffle the response of the violated person.

Of the three Ripper web sites, I have found that the administrators here at the Jack the Ripper Writers web site take the wisest approach. Around here, nobody is allowed to initiate defamatory lies. And if a member is publicly violated on another web site, that member is at least given the opportunity to properly defend himself against the cheap lies that were directed at him.

If all three Ripper web sites were to adopt this common sense policy, then the cheap instigators would soon find themselves out of business. Their dirty posts would be deleted, and their poison would be solely confined to themselves.

But the three Ripper web sites are not in unison in this matter. One site is apathetic toward defamatory behavior, while another prefers to silence its unjustly victimized members. This situation gives a green light to disharmony. It would be much better if the administrators cooperate with each other and establish a uniform policy to handle these situations. I recommend that the policy which is in effect here on this web site be adopted by the other two sites. That being if you instigate a defamatory accusation, then you better show proof to back up your words. If not, your post gets deleted.

The threat of a lawsuit, as was the case in the Littlechild Letter debacle a few years ago, should not be the motivating factor for these administrators to behave responsibly. My own personal experience in this matter came on Posts 58 & 81 on the web link below. Both posts were directed at me and were infested with lies. They were conceived by a man who has a long history of this type of distorted behavior.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=739&page=6

There was no truth to his statement that I have been evicted off of forums. There was no truth to his statement that I desire to have my comments placed on the Casebook message boards. (The reality is that for the past two years I've done all I could to disassociate my family's name with the Casebook.) Unfortunately, a flippant accusation often provokes a childish reaction, such as the immature response seen on Post 82. It was typed by a gullible woman who believed the lies she heard. Yet, there is a logical resolution to all of this. If an order is put into effect by all three web sites that requires a liar to show proof of his accusations, then we would all take pleasure in the fact that his cheap posts will soon be deleted.

Fortunately for us, there is only a small percentage of unscrupulous trouble-makers in our field. Whether or not their misbehavior makes an impact is dependent upon how well the administrators of the three web sites are able to cooperate with each other in an effort to enforce a proper policy.