OP isn't throwing the baby with the bathwater and he explains it very well in his post: the risk of being sued is too great in itself, even if you end up winning the lawsuit.
The general risk of being sued is always there regardless of the various things laws say.
I think there’s a pretty decent argument being made here that OP is reading too far in the new rules and letting the worst case scenario get in the way of something they’re passionate about.
I wonder if they consulted with a lawyer before making this decision? That’s what I would be doing.
In this case though, the griefers don't have to file a lawsuit themselves, they just have to post harmful material and file complaints. That is a much lower threshold. It is less effort than the sorts of harassment these people already inflict on moderators, but with potentially much more serious results.
It’s not obvious to me that from the post or what I know of the legislation that OP is at meaningfully greater risk of being sued by someone malicious/vindictive or just on a crusade about something that they have been prior to the legislation. (Unless, of course, there forums have a consistent problem with significant amounts of harmful content like CSAM, hate speech, etc.)
I am not saying that the risk isn’t there or that this isn’t the prudent course of action, I just don’t feel convinced of it at this point.
> I do so philanthropically without any profit motive (typically losing money)
the cost (and hassle) of consulting with a lawyer is potentially a lot in relative terms.
That said, I thought that the rule in the UK was generally that the loser pays the winners costs, so I'd think that limit the costs of defending truly frivolous suits. The downside risks are possibly still high though.
> That said, I thought that the rule in the UK was generally that the loser pays the winners costs
That’s generally true… but only happens after those costs have been incurred and probably paid.
There’s no guarantee the party suing will be able to cover their own costs and the defendant’s costs. That leaves OP on the hook for defence costs with the hope that they might get them back after a successful and likely expensive defence.
In that situation, I can understand why OP wouldn’t want to take the risk.
Winning against the government is difficult - an asymmetric unfair fight. You can't afford to pay the costs to try: financial, risk, opportunity cost, and most importantly YOUR time.
