Defamation Act 2013

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

We had a guy once compile a list of all swear words to add to the swear filter..... most of them I had never heard of, let alone knew the meaning of.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

it may or may not be defamatory to refer to a certain debt farming company as "The Leeds Losers".

Surely with Cel's track record of successful SD set-asides that would be considered factually correct and therefore not libellous

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

There are ways to comment upon their antics which are not defamatory.

For example, it may or may not be defamatory to refer to a certain debt farming company as "The Leeds Losers", but it would surely be nothing more than common abuse (and hence not defamatory) to call them Bowells or to refer to them as "conniving little shits".

Perhaps you should be tasked with compiling a glossary of acceptable insults for the site ?

Re: Defamation Act 2013

You should NOT write anything that is defamatory about anyone, if you DON'T have proof/evidence that it is correct

In the case of Scrooby v Amazon, Vaughan Jones et al, the claimant actually admitted in court that the allegedly defamatory statements were true!

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

You should NOT write anything that is defamatory about anyone, if you DON'T have proof/evidence that it is correct

As EXC has said defamation is a grey area. I'll add to that that defamation is also subjective. Something which is water off a duck's back to a thick-skinned person can be devastating to others. Max Clifford says "there is no such thing as bad publicity" and sometimes I think he has a point (except in the event of the recent eleven alleged indecent assault charges against minors obviously).

Re: Defamation Act 2013

There's no doubt in my mind that the *bullies* to whom you refer (no names mentioned to avoid a libel complaint) will use this new Act to their advantage. It'll be an easy way to cleanse websites of justifiable criticism of their alleged heinous practices.

There are ways to comment upon their antics which are not defamatory.

For example, it may or may not be defamatory to refer to a certain debt farming company as "The Leeds Losers", but it would surely be nothing more than common abuse (and hence not defamatory) to call them Bowells or to refer to them as "conniving little shits".

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I think the simplest thing to do is read the fabulous explanatory speech in the hansard link I posted earlier, and the relevant regulations, and Defamation Act 2013.

It is markedly fairer, to posters, complainants and website owners.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/...04620/contents

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

There's no doubt in my mind that the *bullies* to whom you refer (no names mentioned to avoid a libel complaint) will use this new Act to their advantage. It'll be an easy way to cleanse websites of justifiable criticism of their alleged heinous practices.

How ? I think it makes it a lot harder.

I think it will stop people making suprious defamation claims because a) the complainant has to give the WO their details and spell out exactly what the complaint is and why and how it is defamatory and b) the poster can give the WO their details and stand by their comments - the complainant then has to go to court to get the WO to release the posters details, then has to bring a defamation action directly against the poster (after preaction protocols etc)

[Gorang]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Oddly enough I had a post pulled on MSE recently where I referred to a particular CMC company by name and ''...also known as the Welsh Mafia'', which although was factually correct could possibly still be considered as potentially libelous, certainly by MSE. My own view was that it wasn't but it just goes to show that the line isn't necessarily that clear.

Thank you as I didn't think about that side of it

[Gorang]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

(and the complainant has to give us their details too btw, and same thing with permission to pass on to poster etc)

That's got me thinking here

IF the complainant gives their full details to the WO but refuses for that info to be passed on to the poster

is it ONLY by way of court summons that the poster will be able to find out the details of who has actually made the complaint

I am asking as this would not seem to be fair to me

ie.
Poster posts
complaint made
complainant gives personal details to WO but NOT permission for the details to be passed onto the poster
WO contacts poster
poster complies and give their details and then asks who is making the complaint
poster then says NO permission to give the complainant the posters details, coz they have NOT gave permission for their details to be passed on to poster (tit for tat...........you can just see it happening)
Complainant wants court action
Court grants order for WO to release posters details to the court in order for a summons to be sent
Complainant gets posters details to serve the summons
Poster knows NOTHING until summons comes in the door and does NOT know who has sent the summons as this is first time they have seen the complainants name and address so has to wonder if it about the same complaint as summons POC is vague

I hope I have some of this wrong as it wouldn't be very fair in my view if one gets before the other gets if you see what I mean


And for avoidance of doubt I personally think

If you have the rollocks to post sumit INTENTIALLY that is defamatory, then you should have the rollocks to stand by what you wrote and if you haven't got the rollocks to stand by what you say then DON'T write it in the first place

UNENTENTIAL defamatory is different as suggests you knew NO better at the time of writing/posting which can/could be sorted with an edit and an appology

ALSO

You should NOT write anything that is defamatory about anyone, if you DON'T have proof/evidence that it is correct

But that is just me and my opinion lol

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

some bullies . . . will make constant complaints - accusations of libel - knowing that the posts they object to will be removed, right or wrong, and they can continue with their behavior unchallenged.

There's no doubt in my mind that the *bullies* to whom you refer (no names mentioned to avoid a libel complaint) will use this new Act to their advantage. It'll be an easy way to cleanse websites of justifiable criticism of their alleged heinous practices.

[MissFM]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Google what?

The Norwich Pharmacal Order? I already knew about it, just as I already knew about Anton Piiler Orders.

Likewise, I already knew something of the "libel by parrot" case, which was cited by HHJ Salmon when he concluded that the alleged defamation by signal flags by Albert Haddock was, in anything, slander rather than libel and that the plaintiff (as the claimant was then called) would need to prove damages.

Re: Defamation Act 2013

off the top of your head like

Well, sort of. I certainly didn't need to consider it for long - the only thing I Googled was the Catweazle video.

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Oddly enough I had a post pulled on MSE recently where I referred to a particular CMC company by name and ''...also known as the Welsh Mafia'', which although was factually correct could possibly still be considered as potentially libelous, certainly by MSE. My own view was that it wasn't but it just goes to show that the line isn't necessarily that clear.

It is not difficult to understand how the Capo of the North Wales Taffia might be offended by comparing his family business to a CMC scam.

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I would like to know the answer to this too

In my view it would depend on who the claim was against ie the poster, the site or both.