Defamation Act 2013

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

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.

Which the website operator would willingly hand over or stand by their principles and face contempt of court?

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

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.

If the poster did not wish the website operator to have their details then they would say so and the post complained about would be removed.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Why should some third party take responsibility for what you say about someone to the point that they should provide a trained individual to monitor your posts?

Because that's what newspaper editors do so why not websites? Especially one dedicated to legal issues which can be by definition contentious not to mention criticism of bailiffs and debt collection agency practices.

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Because that's what newspaper editors do so why not websites?

Because, unlike websites, the content of newspapers cannot be removed after publication. Additionally websites such as this have far less control as to what is published by others and so the new Act recognizes that distinction and places more of a burden on the author of online comments.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Not sure why but you are misreading.

Basically it makes the poster of comments put their money where their mouth is rather than relying on the protection of website operators.

I don't think I'm misreading at all.

What this new system does is allow the website operators to delegate legal responsibility for a site's content to the members. So I can see how that would be popular with website operators

The upshot could be that members water down the content of their posts for fear of direct legal action being taken against them as an individual, which in turn could make a website all the more duller to read as a result. Cloggy could find himself with a dozen writs a day on his desk

:juge:

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

It's the same rules of defamation - and is actually positive because it means we do not have to be as concerned about posters posting defamatory content and getting the website sued/taken down and so on if we don't remove it. We can leave content up, and if the poster wishes to stand by their comments then they will be fully aware of the risk if their comments are found by a court to be defamatory - and the website operators don't have to worry about upsetting posters by being totally anal about taking stuff down straight away just in case, that is because they have the new defence - so it should result in MORE discussion and MORE honest opinion not less.

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Cloggy could find himself with a dozen writs a day on his desk

To be fair he would have received a writ from Schillings had we not spent a considerable amount of effort and money employing solicitors to block their attempts to do so.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I said my view would be unpopular but I stand by it. A website operator should take responsibility for its content. It should have Moderators trained in libel law (it only takes a day) who will be always on the lookout for potential risks.

I don't buy into the argument that it gives the website operators more flexibility to leave up libel for longer if at the same time it means that they could leave the member unknowingly at risk of personal (and potentially ruinous) legal proceedings against them. Not all posters are capable of knowing what a libel looks like if it was staring them in the face. Why should they if they're ordinary members of the public expressing an opinion?

Or to put it another way, I see it as 'passing the buck'.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Quite recently (like last week) we had a company contact us asking for content to be removed, as always we check things out carefully before any removal takes place, and if we can't find any bonafide evidence that the comments posted are true, we have to remove them, so even though despite concerns that others may not be warned about the company if the comments made were true, we couldn't find any evidence to say they definitely were true, and they were removed. Many sites don't investigate anything and just ditch anything that is complained about without looking any further because they are scared of being taken down by hosting companies/sued etc etc, so the new defence will allow these sites to be more confident about leaving content in place if the poster of it is willing to take the fallout if it is found to be untrue/defamatory etc.

Plus honest opinion is also a defence. ( you really should read the full Defamation Act and the Hansard from last month )

It makes us stronger, not weaker.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

http://www.publications.parliament.u...13111956000130 - Hansard specifically about the website defence.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/...04620/contents - Defamation Act 2013

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

To be fair he would have received a writ from Schillings had we not spent a considerable amount of effort and money employing solicitors to block their attempts to do so.

Good case in point. We could have just taken down all the warnings about RLP at the first sniff of a defamation claim.

Many other sites DID just take stuff down. From January they won't have to act that way and can be more confident that postings are correct because posters are willing to put their money where their mouth is, rather than us having to do it on their behalf without first hand knowledge.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

It makes us stronger, not weaker.

Exactly. It puts a website operator in a stronger position by putting the poster in the firing line instead.

If "honest opinion" is a defence then why did Sally Bercow pay out £15k in damages and £200k in legal fees in a libel settlement over that innocent tweet . . .

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

The High Court deemed her tweet was not innocent.

Should Twitter have been sued over her comment instead ? I don't think so.

Honest Opinion - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...tion/3/enacted

Don't forget the Sally Bercow case is historical rather than future, the new act and regulation makes it a lot easier for posters, complainants and website operators to deal with and understand defamation (IMO).

It's certainly removed a lot of uncertainty for us.

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Exactly. It puts a website operator in a stronger position by putting the poster in the firing line instead.

If "honest opinion" is a defence then why did Sally Bercow pay out £15k in damages and £200k in legal fees in a libel settlement over that innocent tweet . . .

I think Ame meant the site and it's users when she referred to 'us'.

An honest opinion or honestly held belief is no defence . The test in libel is whether what is said is untrue and capable of inflicting serious harm, whether in ignorance or not.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Sorry, yes, I meant us as in the 'little people' rather than the organisations jumping on any negative comment, true or not because they know website operators will just sh*t themselves and take down the content.