Defamation Act 2013

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

organisations jumping on any negative comment, true or not because they know website operators will just sh*t themselves and take down the content.

^^^^ That is something I can agree with you on. But if the price to pay is to disclose a poster's personal details to a third party then that's something we will have to disagree on. I would sooner go to jail than do that.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

If you didn't want to disclose your contact details to the complainant or the website operator, then your post would be removed, and that would be the end of the matter - I have said that a few times.

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

^^^^ That is something I can agree with you on. But if the price to pay is to disclose a poster's personal details to a third party then that's something we will have to disagree on. I would sooner go to jail than do that.

Disclosure is entirely a matter for the poster. That is short of a court order but that would have applied anyway.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Disclosure is entirely a matter for the poster. That is short of a court order but that would have applied anyway.

Perhaps my sensitivity is because my poster username and my real life persona are fairly interchangeable and known in some circles so no need for a website operator to grass me up. The good news is I know how not to libel people

But it's not hard to track down users from their posts particular ones where the full story is told in some detail on their thread, especially if a complainant is determined to sue them.

What will help is that there should be less libel actions since there is no point in suing an individual with no money. Businesses will always go for the deepest pockets which will be the website operators or hosting companies. Now they can't (from 1st January 2014).

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I can see that no one has thanked any of my posts but thanked all the others so as predicted my view is unpopular :doggieyes:

[ploddertom]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Must admit I have found this quite informative particularly as there is one ex-poster/member whi is adamant he used this new law earlier this year against LB.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

It's not unpopular, it's probably useful to others to get a handle on things too.

I don't seem to be getting over very well the parts about posters details and not really sure how to make it clearer for you.

It is ONLY passed on if you, when informed about the complaint, give them to the website operator. They can't be passed on without your permission, which you are entitled to withold, and the complainant then must be told the website operator has your details and they have to apply to court for an order to obtain the details from the website operator.

However if you refuse to give your information to the website operator the comments must be removed within 48 hours.

For the avoidance of doubt, the website operators can still be 'sued' if they fail to follow the regulations, or indeed if they post it themselves, it is simply more protection for websites with comments/posts submitted 'anonymously' by users of the site. Websites can still be found liable but we do have a more appropriate defence to use once the new Act comes in in Jan.

I think it will allow for a much greater freedom of speech online than has previously been the case.


On Ploddertom's point - as I'm sure you are already aware - the claims made are utter rubbish.

On that subject though...

The Defamation Bill has completed all its Parliamentary stages, and having received Royal Assent has become the Defamation Act 2013.

The Act requires a Statutory Instrument to bring it into force.

It has already been announced this SHOULD be in January 2014 and does not apply retrospectively.

[Tools]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I can see that no one has thanked any of my posts but thanked all the others so as predicted my view is unpopular :doggieyes:

I haven`t thanked purely because it is an incorrect view, rather than an unpopular one.

However, your interpretation may follow that of others reading so effectively you are asking questions that others may not feel comfortable asking and therefore not get the correct answers. For that I, and I`m sure many others, thank you.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Perhaps my sensitivity is because my poster username and my real life persona are fairly interchangeable and known in some circles so no need for a website operator to grass me up. The good news is I know how not to libel people

But it's not hard to track down users from their posts particular ones where the full story is told in some detail on their thread, especially if a complainant is determined to sue them.

Unless I have misread it, the website operator would never grass you up, even if they know who you are, either personally or because you can be identified from your posts. What they would do is just remove the "offending" post(s) after receiving a complaint, unless you specifically authorise them to disclose your details for the sake of letting your posts stand.

From previous experience on various forums, admin/mods often just remove posts they don't think should be there for whatever reason, without even receiving a complaint from a third party. At some point, a well known consumer forum removed almost anything that could be construed as "debt avoidance", such as any mention of unenforceability. That led me to join a not-so-well known forum where they engaged in different practices.

^^^^ That is something I can agree with you on. But if the price to pay is to disclose a poster's personal details to a third party then that's something we will have to disagree on. I would sooner go to jail than do that.

Only if you authorise them to do so.

What I can see happening is more posts being removed from all sites, even BEFORE a complaint is received. :Cry::Cry::Cry:

What will help is that there should be less libel actions since there is no point in suing an individual with no money.

The idea behind complaining about an individual's posts is not so much to sue them and make money out of it -libel suits can be complex and expensive, and the average punter on a forum wouldn't have enough cash to pay for your legal costs, let alone make you rich- but to get the offending post(s) removed (I should know about this ), because no-one likes to see negative comments posted about them, even when they are true. The problem is that people rush to shout "defamation!" or "libel!" whenever they see something they don't like, not just when it's untrue.

Businesses will always go for the deepest pockets which will be the website operators or hosting companies. Now they can't (from 1st January 2014).

This isn't necessarily all bad, if you ever want to set up a website/blog/forum it should work in your favour.

I'd have thought one way to get around things would be to host your site offshore, outside the law's jurisdiction. At the very least, that would make it virtually impossible to have your site shut down as a result of complaints filed with the hosting company.

It does not apply retrospectively, so only stuff that is posted after commencement which is in January 2014.

I shall run wild for the next few weeks then! msl: msl: msl:

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I haven`t thanked purely because it is an incorrect view, rather than an unpopular one.

However, your interpretation may follow that of others reading so effectively you are asking questions that others may not feel comfortable asking and therefore not get the correct answers. For that I, and I`m sure many others, thank you.

Is that you being rude, patronizing, sarcastic or facetious? I can't quite work out which But I'm certain you're not truly thanking me.

[Tools]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Is that you being rude, patronizing, sarcastic or facetious? I can't quite work out which But I'm certain you're not truly thanking me.

Neither, I was truly thanking you. Calling me rude, patronizing, sarcastic and facetious could be defamatory lol, now send me all your details hehe.

Just kidding, the thanks were genuine, if I had intended any other meaning I would have made that quite clear, I thought you knew me better than that by now.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Calling me rude, patronizing, sarcastic and facetious could be defamatory.

Not if it's the truth apparently msl:

[Tools]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Exactly, and if you had evidence that you were willing to stand by then the scenario would be that you would stick to your guns, provide details and be happy to present that in court.

Beagles would not simply delete the comment, they would let it remain unless ordered to remove it by a court.

If I knew your comments to be true I would not be able to bully the website owners into removing the comment by threat of legal action against them.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Unless I have misread it, the website operator would never grass you up, even if they know who you are, either personally or because you can be identified from your posts.

One would like to think that was true. Until I read this:

They can't be passed on without your permission, which you are entitled to withold, and the complainant then must be told the website operator has your details and they have to apply to court for an order to obtain the details from the website operator.

followed by this

If you give your details but refuse permission to pass them on, then the post stays, and the complainant goes to court to get an order for us to give them to the complainant.

and this

If we had a court order asking for a poster's details that they had given us following a defamation complaint, then yes, those details would be handed over.

Which suggests a website operator will hand over a member's personal details to the complainant if ordered to by a court.

[Tools]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Only if that website has your personal details and your permission to release them, Beagles does not have either, you would decline passing them to us so the post would be removed.