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.

[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

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.

[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'.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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

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.

[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

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

Not sure why but you are misreading.

If you agree to removal of the post - the post will be removed (end of matter)

If you refuse to give your details - your post will be removed (end of matter)

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.

If you give your details and agree to have them passed on, then the post stays, and the complainant gets in touch with the poster directly or sues them.


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

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

I need to read the Act from top to bottom before my comments can be considered valid. But my personal view is absolute horror at the thought of a website being able to pass my personal contact details to a third party in full knowledge that the third party's intentions are to sue the pants off me in court. I do hope I've misunderstood that

Added to that I should say that there is no way on God's earth that I would ever disclose a member's confidential information to a third party under those circumstances if I were the owner of a website.

Surely the way forward is for websites to make sure someone is fully trained in libel law to monitor posts and immediately remove them if they cross the line. It doesn't have to be an expensive qualified lawyer (unless a volunteer of course ). I was trained on a national newspaper where any copy which had the potential for libel was run passed the duty solicitor. If it was deemed risky but necessary (in the public interest) then it was "publish and be damned" with the paper taking responsibility for the content not the hapless reporter. That's why I'm uncomfortable about the notion that a website can hide behind its posters.

I'm sure my view will be unpopular :behindsofa:

I'm not sure I understand. 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?

Ultimately responsibility for what you say must rest with you.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

respond to complainant and contact poster within 48 hours (working days), the poster must respond within 5 working days, and those details then passed on within a further 48 hours.

:scared: :scared: :scared:

Even if the post is removed what will happen to the member who refuses to reveal their personal details to be handed over like a lamb to the slaughter to the litigious complainant? Apart from the obvious

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

made available either voluntarily or on order of a court

You mishighlighted

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.