Defamation Act 2013

[PlanB]

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.

Do you mean only if the poster actively gives a website operator their personal details as a direct consequence of a libel complaint and not if the website operator already knows them (since members have to provide an email address to register)? If that is the case then if a website operator has the member's details on record (for other reasons) they wouldn't have to disclose them under a court order if the member doesn't give them permission, which the poster obviously wouldn't do under threat of legal proceedings. :confused2:

* Please note my comments are not aimed at Legal Beagles in particular, they're in relation to this shift of legal responsibility from the website operator to the poster. This is intended to be a general discussion from a nervous poster's perspective and not an attack on the website

[FlamingParrot]

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.

Do you mean only if the poster actively gives a website operator their personal details as a direct consequence of a libel complaint and not if the website operator already knows them (since members have to provide an email address to register)? If that is the case then if a website operator has the member's details on record (for other reasons) they wouldn't have to disclose them under a court order if the member doesn't give them permission, which the poster obviously wouldn't do under threat of legal proceedings. :confused2:

That was my understanding when I posted the following, I hope I got it right: :noidea:

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.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Do you mean only if the poster actively gives a website operator their personal details as a direct consequence of a libel complaint and not if the website operator already knows them (since members have to provide an email address to register)? If that is the case then if a website operator has the member's details on record (for other reasons) they wouldn't have to disclose them under a court order if the member doesn't give them permission, which the poster obviously wouldn't do under threat of legal proceedings. :confused2:

* Please note my comments are not aimed at Legal Beagles in particular, they're in relation to this shift of legal responsibility from the website operator to the poster. This is intended to be a general discussion from a poster's perspective and not an attack on the website

With regards to email addresses, it's often wise to use a different email address for forum registration, especially if your email address has your real name as is the case with mine, which is firstname@surname.com. For that reason, I use a different email address to sign up. Once you get to know the site well, you can always change the email address attached with your account if you wish.

This is also intended as a general comment, obviously all of you LB admins/site team know who I am, my full name and my life history.

The above comments relate to joining a forum in general, when you have no idea who's behind it or what they're like. :decision: Many people set up free email addresses just for the purpose of joining forums.

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

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

Correct except that complying with a court order is not capable of being of being described as 'grassing up'.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

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

Correct except that complying with a court order is not capable of being of being described as 'grassing up'.

A couple of questions about this:

1. Will the court order (and subsequent disclosure/grassing up, delete as appropriate) only apply if the OP refused to allow the site admin to remove their posts?
2. If the site policy is merely to request an email address (as is the case with most sites), but site admin know the OP personally and have their full details (as is the case with some of us on here), will they have to disclose the details they've obtained from other sources?

[Tools]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

The OP does not make the decision of whether or not they "allow" their post to be removed.

Only details held by the website in its capacity to hold such data, i.e email address(es), IP address(es), username.

If for example, I knew you personally "off site" and I personally held your phone number, home address etc then I, as a person, would not be under a duty to disclose them.

By registering with the site, you are assumed to have agreed to the various policies (see bottom of page) which describes everything in full, if you have not actually read them, a read through should explain in more detail.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

In the context of a defamation complaint regarding a post you have made - if you wished the content to remain on the site - then you would have to supply the website operator with your full contact details. You can give permission for those details to be passed on to the complainant, or you can ask that they be kept private except by order of the court.

If you do not answer/we cannot contact you, you refuse to give contact details, or you give false details, then your post is removed.

Otherwise everything that has always stood, stands. We only hold IP's and emails (that you chose to give us and may or may not be proxies/bulk etc) and those would be released by order of a court. Nothing else is held at all in the capacity of LegalBeagles.

Have a read of our standard terms of use, privacy policy and so on.

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

or, what he said ^^^^^^^ Sorry crossed posted as I was on the tellingbone.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

With regards to email addresses, it's often wise to use a different email address for forum registration, especially if your email address has your real name as is the case with mine, which is firstname@surname.com. For that reason, I use a different email address to sign up. Once you get to know the site well, you can always change the email address attached with your account if you wish.

Beagles has the address of one of my accounts at gmail.com but, to determine who I am and where I reside would surely require Google UK to be served with another Norwich Pharmacal Order and then for the same to be done to my current ISP.

So, that's three orders needed and, were any to be refused, the claimant could be up the proverbial creek on the matter of costs.

All of that is hypothetical, of course, as I am not so unreasonable as to stand on my rights and insist that my post should remain unaltered. 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.

To quote the famous (if unreported) "libel by parrot" case, the statement uttered by the trained macaw of "Councillor Wart has not washed today!" may be defamatory and it may have been libel rather slander to teach that to a parrot as it could be said to have been a biological form of a permanent recording, but if the phrase merely questioned the bathing habits of Councillor Wart, would that necessarily have been defamatory?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I was on the tellingbone.

You are Catweazle and I claim the News Chronicle Prize! :grin:

[enaid]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Well the way I see it and I may have it wrong, you can come here and say as you please, if 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.
I should think anyone would know exactly by that, you best be sure what you are posting is fact, that is if it defamatory, doubt this would apply to just a little disagreement.
If you refuse then the post will be removed within 48 hours and a total of 9 days for the full monty.
Making them responsible for their own actions as it should be.

[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.

[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

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.

[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