Moderation Policy

419legal.org was established as a forum in 2004 to enhance public awareness about 419 email scams. Today it is an open forum where members can discuss everything from potential scams to suspicious or fraudulent looking emails (including those 419 emails that were are original focus). We hope that by sharing this information both members and nonmembers can be made aware of potential scams and that we can be part of making the internet a safe place. We ask that visitors review our rules, posting suggestions, moderation policy and TOS before participating in our community.

419Legal Forum Rules (This is a brief summary - complete list is here)
1) Be courteous.
2) Absolutely no swearing or posting of adult material.
3) Be informative and well researched.4) 2) No self promotion –Spam and Self Promotion is Erased.
5) Before creating a new - see if a similar topic already exists.
6) Post in the correct section. 7) Avoid Slang
8) Stay on Topic
9) Avoid the use of all CAPITAL LETTERS

This website assumes no responsibility for comments or content posted by its members. This is based on several court rulings. content based on these US Court rulings and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which provides that "[no] provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," and that "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”

Other than removing spam – we don’t moderate (moderation policy) 419legal.org. 419legal.org does not endorse or attest to the accuracy of any information posted by any of its members. Readers should not assume the accuracy of any post. Often scammers will try to take advantage of those looking for help so please beware. Several means exist to find out more about our members please make use of them (Finding out more about members).Certain links on this Site lead to websites maintained by individuals or organizations over whom the Site Owners have no control.

MODERATION POLICY

The mission of 419legal.org is to provide an open platform to individuals to discuss online scams. We don’t moderate our take an editorial role at 419legal (except in that our employed moderators are trained to remove spam and self promotion).

Site visitors should be advised that:
- Posts made on 419legal.org are not checked for accuracy.
-Members are not screened prior to selection and anyone can join. Nothing prevents scammers from joining or participating in the discussions. - Posts made on 419legal.org do not represent the views of 419legal.org.
- Certain links on this Site lead to websites maintained by individuals or organizations over whom the Site Owners have no control. The Site Owners make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or any other aspect of the information located on such websites.

We take this policy as taking an active editorial role would make us responsible for the content And if that happened we could not serve the purpose that the website exists for. This is from (www2.dcn.org/dcn/about/policies/LibelPolicy) which has a very well thought out policy:

Here's where events in cyberspace have actually set some legal precedents.
Open forum examples include USENET, bulletin board, and HyperNews forums. Recent court decisions suggest that the liability of the provider of such a forum depends on the degree to which they edit (or represent themselves as editing) the content of the forum.

In Cubby v. Compuserve, Compuserve was protected by the fact that they did not edit the content of their forums and did not represent the forums as edited or pruned. Compuserve had no opportunity to review forum materials before they became available to on-line readers. Thus, the court found that Compuserve exercised no more editorial control than a bookstore or newsstand which is not aware of the complete contents of every publication it may carry. Requiring knowledge of every posting would restrict availability, an action which the state may not require without constraining speech.

However, in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (often referred to as the Prodigy Case), the court found that Prodigy exercised editorial control over its forums by saying it would remove offensive or uncivil postings (and occasionally doing so). The key distinctions between Compuserve and Prodigy were: "First, Prodigy held itself out to the public and its members as controlling the content of its computer bulletin boards. Second, Prodigy implemented this control through its automatic software screening program, and the Guidelines which Board Leaders are required to enforce." Prodigy, the court found, actually wanted a "chilling effect on freedom of communication in Cyberspace ... but for the legal liability that attaches to such censorship." With editorial control comes liability, the court argued, suggesting that forum operators choose their level of liability when they choose their level of editorial control.

One conclusion we can draw from Prodigy is that where it is not feasible for 419legal.org to examine every posting for defamatory content, as in a lively online public forum, we should not pretend to do so. So that When 419legal.org opens public forums, it must either largely keep its hands off or make it very clear what editorial responsibility it is taking. And, we must exercise that responsibility completely if we take it at all. At 419legal.org we have a strict Hands off Policy.