Defamation Act 2013

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I would like to know the answer to this too

In as much as any claims against anyone for anything are fought solo, yes, but no we're not going to kick you out into the cold and slam the door on your fingers really, are we.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

if the first comment can be backed up with facts or proof then it would not be defamatory as it would be true due to fact and proof

Which can only be decided by a court (if the complainant launches a libel action) and who will pay for that if the responsibility for the burden of proof will transfer from the website operator to the poster?

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

off the top of your head like

Re: Defamation Act 2013

CatWeazel and the Tellingbone .

I'm sure the rest is ingrained on your memory already. Catweazel is slightly more meaningless twaddle with which to fill the gaps in your mind.

Indeed - just like Peter Wimsey, "I have a mind like fly-paper".

I seem to recall that's from Strong Poison by - of course - Dorothy L. Sayers.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Supposing there were an allegation made on here that was backed up with verifiable facts - would you still expect the poster to fight a defamation claim solo?

I would like to know the answer to this too

Re: Defamation Act 2013

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

So one might legally question someone's bathing habits until then?

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

way I see this is
if the first comment can be backed up with facts or proof then it would not be defamatory as it would be true due to fact and proof

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.

[Tools]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

CleverClogs - I sincerely hope you had to google that or your mind is more full of useless information than my dear OH's.

Who do I complain to round here that`s a vicious slur on my good character.................oh hang on..............you`re right, tangents are my speciality, case dismissed.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Google what?

CatWeazel and the Tellingbone .

I'm sure the rest is ingrained on your memory already. Catweazel is slightly more meaningless twaddle with which to fill the gaps in your mind.

Re: Defamation Act 2013

CleverClogs - I sincerely hope you had to google that or your mind is more full of useless information than my dear OH's.

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.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

MissFM - We've always stood up for people and the right to freespeech, and we are very proud to have been involved in a teeny tiny way with the Libel Reform group that helped bring these changes about, and nothing will change on that score. It simply means that we can be more confident now that LB will not be at threat because someone posts something that is false and defamatory, so although we already investigate the truth behind any claims as much as we are able to with extremely limited resources ( so me and google then), we now know we won't have to default to the 'better take it down in case they sue us' setting.

By way of another example I took a thread down a couple weeks ago, which I had resisted doing so initially, as upon investigating I found that at least two of the three posters of the accusations levelled at the 'complainant' were actually the same person and there was nothing, anywhere, at all, with any inkling of similar issues.

It'll never be a free for all, and we retain the right, obviously, to remove anything unsuitable from the site, however if there is a bonafide complaint (and the complainant has to give us their details too btw, and same thing with permission to pass on to poster etc) we know we can use the new WO defence if we follow the correct procedures.

[Gorang]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

way I see this is

Supposing there were an allegation made on here that was backed up with verifiable facts

if the first comment can be backed up with facts or proof then it would not be defamatory as it would be true due to fact and proof

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Nelly, nearly spot on (sorry)

this bit

'' someone takes a dislike to what you have said and complains then they can ask for your details and if you refuse can get a court order to get your details and sue you.''

In the regulations (which is what this thread is about) should be....

'' someone takes a dislike to what you have said and complains to the WO, who then asks for your details and if you refuse to give them your post will be removed''

so should negate people needing the Norwich Pharmcal Order malarky as the WO should be complained to first and a have a duty to obtain that information or remove the content.


CleverClogs - I sincerely hope you had to google that or your mind is more full of useless information than my dear OH's.

[MissFM]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

This thread is really interesting - although, to a paranoiac's paranoiac a little unsettling.

Admin (and further unofficial site team?) will presumably have identifying personal details of anyone who has made an online donation, for example - their real name, at least. (If one has an unusual name, it's but a hop, a skip and a jump etc..)

Like others here, I wouldn't go out of my way to make defamatory remarks - although sometimes it's satisfying to be extremely rude.

Supposing there were an allegation made on here that was backed up with verifiable facts - would you still expect the poster to fight a defamation claim solo?

I ask out of curiosity (and pragmatism), not to rock any boats. It is observable that some bullies (and most of us here are against 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 - even, as in the example PT quoted above, claim victory.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I'd like to know what part(s) of my comments or opinions the claimant considered to be defamatory and may wish to amend my post to remove that problem.

Part of the WO contacting the P includes telling them exactly what the complaint is, to which statement is applies and what meaning had been taken from the statement, so indeed they could amend their post accordingly (or ask the WO to do it) which would then go back to the complainant. It is only if you want to stand by what you said and leave it published that addresses would even come into it.