Is Libel Possible On an Internet Chat Room?

[El Presidente]

What about all the horses you regularly defame by claiming they have a chance of winning though Gareth?

Do you want to the person responsible for closing down NSC?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I would get the person directly not NSC. I have had disagreements with people beofre but what this person wrote was beyond the pail and unacceptable.

 

[Titanic]

Was it written on NSC ? or in a PM ?? I don't recall any public death threats recently.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

It wasn;t you so relax Titanic.

 

[Titanic]

Phew !

 

[El Presidente]

Whoever it was it clearly was not a bookmaker, they love you too much

 

[Shizuoka Dolphin]

I'm not sure such disclaimers are worth anything at all legally.

So far as stating your position firmly AGAINST postings which cross the line of acceptability, they are of value.

If, without such a disclaimer, you just delete libelous posting on the occasion that someone requests it, then you, as the publisher, are effectivly saying you agree with it, and will only take it down when someone threatens such action.

By stating your posistion as against any such postings, then you cover your arse by saying "I want to make sure nothing dodgy is posted about anyone, and as publisher I'll make sure any such postings are deleted ASAP - either when we see it, or someone reports it."

It's far better to have one than not to bother, as it prevents any ambiguity about your intent as publisher.

 

[Wardy]

Yes because there is the option to look at someone's profile etc.

 

[Gwylan]

The Godfrey case is, I think, the only UK libel action to involve the Web. In that instance, Demon settled out of court rather than have the case tested.

I think that in NSC's case if the mods remove the offending article when informed of the defamatory nature, Bozza should be OK. In the Godfrey case, Demon didn't pull the offending words when they could have done.

Read about Godfrey case here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695596.stm

Note though that the fact that we use silly names has no effect whatsoever on whether a post is defamatory or not. A plaintiff only has to show that that name refers to him/her, and is understood to refer to him/her.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Obviously you can libel someone on the net, even in a chatroom/messageboard.

The main strand of the defences available where the internet is concerned is the 'reasonable care' one.

In the case on here, if Lord B's facts are correct no court in the country would convict the ISP of libel.

But if you a) didn't moderate where necessary, or b) respond pretty quickly to a warning from the offended party of their solicitors, thne you'd be in trouble.

Even Posh and Becks, notoriously litigious, chose not to go for Popbitch before issuing a warning. The site immediately took the posts off, nothing happened.

 

[On the Left Wing]

It is a bed of nettles. And this advice comes from my own legal training and 16 years in national and local journalism:
If the victim of the libel can be identified – even by just one reader – then there are grounds for action, irrespective of any pseudonym. The perpetrator of the libel must also be positively identified.But for the libel to be actionable it must be (a) damaging to the victim’s reputation or (b) malicious and designed to cause harm and must also be (c) untrue. The perpetrator of the libel must also be positively identified.
In an action both the perpetrator of the libel can be sued and the editor and proprietor of the publication – or in the case of a website, its own and or administrator.
However personal court action for libel is very rare in this country unless you happen to be a celebrity. This is due to the very high legal costs in bringing an action. If someone looks to bring action for defamation they must fund a solicitor and a QC. They must also risk court costs being charged against them. In addition there is no legal aid for defamation actions.

 

[Everest]

Maybe we ought to re-register again with Bozza putting a disclaimer on the form saying that the poster is solely responsible for his/her posts. You have to accept this disclaimer before you can complete the registration.

On second thoughts, stupid idea & who will want to re-register again?

 

[Simster]

I agree with the sentiment that the person made such a fuss it could be deemed to make it look mre suspicious than it was ever meant!

That was my initial reaction when I was discussing it with my wife. However, she reckons that if the person in question earns his living working with children or has some other role of child supervision, then it is understandable that they take these accusations VERY seriously and cannot be ignored.

I'd liken it to something that happened in a company I used to work for, where a bloke was sacked (for being incredibly lazy!) but had enough time to send out a bitter email to the entire group explaining why he was hard done by. The company has to reply to the email, even if everyone knows the bitter email is utter rubbish. If not, the rumour mill rolls on...

 

[Commander]

I'm not 100 per cent sure that a libel lawyer would agree. Which is why message boards are uniquely vulnerable.

In the particular instance that people have in mind at the moment, I think we did pretty well:-

2.22 Offending post appears
2.42 Possibility of legal action is raised by the person offended
2.45 Offending post is removed from the board
2.56 NSC is disabled, pending consideration of the seriousness of the threat of legal action
2.57 I look at the board and find out I have missed everything

 

[El Presidente]

I'm not 100 per cent sure that a libel lawyer would agree. Which is why message boards are uniquely vulnerable.

In the particular instance that people have in mind at the moment, I think we did pretty well:-

2.22 Offending post appears
2.42 Possibility of legal action is raised by the person offended
2.45 Offending post is removed from the board
2.56 NSC is disabled, pending consideration of the seriousness of the threat of legal action
2.57 I look at the board and find out I have missed everything

You did not miss much, and to be honest, the comment was not actually that strong, and could be construed in a variety of ways.

In future, if you don't like what someone has to say, just call them a twat, it's a lot easier for all concerned!

 

[London Irish]

The Godfrey case is, I think, the only UK libel action to involve the Web. In that instance, Demon settled out of court rather than have the case tested.

I think that in NSC's case if the mods remove the offending article when informed of the defamatory nature, Bozza should be OK. In the Godfrey case, Demon didn't pull the offending words when they could have done.

Read about Godfrey case here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695596.stm

Note though that the fact that we use silly names has no effect whatsoever on whether a post is defamatory or not. A plaintiff only has to show that that name refers to him/her, and is understood to refer to him/her.

There was also the recent case involving the Sunday Herald messageboard and Lord Robertson. This case was also settled, alas, with damages paid by the messageboard operator before reaching court.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1301108,00.html

This really is the problem in discussing this issue, nobody really knows the extent of the liability of the webmaster or the ISP or messageboards/chat rooms, it hasn't been properly tested in court judgements.

But we have examples of publishers caving before reaching court, so the weight of legal advice is still, sadly, that the same rules apply to webmasters/ISPs as they do to broadcasters.

For example, if the BBC conducted a live broadcast, let us say, from an Albion fans forum. If someone at the forum libelled another fan (it is libel and not slander when broadcast) and the BBC broadcast that live all over Sussex, the BBC would still be guilty of libel. At issue then would be the degree of culpability in deciding the award of damages.

The relevant act says: "In an action for a libel in a broadcast, the defendant may plead in mitigation of damages that the libel was broadcast without actual malice and without gross negligence and that before the commencement of the action, or at the earliest opportunity afterwards, the defendant broadcast a full apology for the libel."

Essentially that was what the NSC mods did on this occasion without the formal apology. If this case has gone to court, their prompt action would have been a big factor in limiting the size of damages.

But we have to be clear, prompt action by mods doesn't mean there is no libel, it just means the damages are smaller.

So there is, alas, a very real threat to those like Bozza who continue to operate this service on behalf of us all.

But it does remain a remote threat, as libel remains a rich man's game and very few people of ordinary means follow through on threats of court action given the huge costs involved.

The lesson I would draw from this is simple. The best way to avoid libel on NSC is to be ruthless in banning the idiots likely to do it. Bozza should get all our support when taking action against disruptive elements on NSC who take the piss.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

My libel action is not against you LI even though you are a pompous git sometimes I actually have a lot of time for you. Your threads and history lessons are well thought out even though most of it is bollocks

 

[Brovion]

My libel action is not against you LI even though you are a pompous git sometimes I actually have a lot of time for you. Your threads and history lessons are well thought out even though most of it is bollocks

Oooooh can he say that? Actually that sounds less like libel/slander and more like a challenge for a duel: "You Sir, are talking bollocks!". Go on L.I., slap him round the face with your gauntlet and demand he gives you satisfaction.

 

[Fran Hagarty]

The lesson I would draw from this is simple. The best way to avoid libel on NSC is to be ruthless in banning the idiots likely to do it. Bozza should get all our support when taking action against disruptive elements on NSC who take the piss.

Hear, hear! The offending comment may or may not have been meant to be taken seriously - it was apparently referred to afterwards by the person who wrote it as a joke. I appreciate that there is banter and name calling on here and most is taken in good part. However, on occasions, this goes too far, and the implication in this case was certainly of a libellous nature and could have serious consequences for the recipient if mistakenly believed to be true.

I'm sure there is no-one who would want to be on the receiving end of such a remark, particularly as there are those who, in an immature way, find it amusing to continue with the so-called "joke" causing even more distress.

From comments made, it would appear that some people may be thick skinned enough to disregard this kind of thing, but others are more sensitive and I think people should think what damage they may cause and the possible repercussions for a person innocent of the inferred activity if people act on what is merely speculation.

On the subject, I think Kevin the Ape should be given a break. Admittedly, he has made some pretty tactless remarks, but he is only young and I think he's ben made more than aware that some people don't appreciate what he has said.

A more sensitive attitude and diplomacy would not go amiss.

Here endeth the lesson!