Defamation Act 2013

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

the poster of the post will be given opportunity to decide whether to remove the post or stand by it and leave it in place, on the condition they give their full contact information to the website owners to be made available either voluntarily or on order of a court should the complainant wish to sue for defamation, and the complainant can sue the source of the post directly.

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:

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

The new 'reasonable' time frame, is 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, or if the poster does not contact with full contact details, the post removed within 48 hours of the 5 days.

So basically you have 9 working days from date of complaint to supply posters details or remove post.

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

The case summary indicates that the hosting company/platform were not made liable. But if it was caught by the new Act Google may well have been held liable as they took 5 weeks to notify the blogger of the complaint whereas under the new Act there is a set procedure and timeline for doing so

I agree that this case was all about timing as stated in Paragraph 36 of the judgment which implies that if Google had not removed the libel within a reasonable timeframe they would have been liable in law. Hence the need for a definitive time limit (the new Act) for reaction by the hosting company, internet platform or any other "publisher".

In the Tamiz vs Google case the other main consideration was that the Blog was read by very few people so no real harm done hence no damages due. Obviously a website with a large 'readership' would be less likely to succeed in playing that card when under attack from a company or business which claims to have suffered a financial loss as a direct result of libel. Swiftly removing the libel may still not be enough.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/68.html

[EXC]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

So how will this impact on the COA Tamiz vs Google case in February this year where it was ruled that the hosting company and/or the internet platform such as Google can be made legally liable for defamation/libel posted on a blog or internet forum:

http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...3-399a0b9b7c46

The case summary indicates that the hosting company/platform were not made liable. But if it was caught by the new Act Google may well have been held liable as they took 5 weeks to notify the blogger of the complaint whereas under the new Act there is a set procedure and timeline for doing so, which Beagles have already adopted http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...consumer-forum

[PlanB]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

So how will this impact on the COA Tamiz vs Google case in February this year where it was ruled that the hosting company and/or the internet platform such as Google can be made legally liable for defamation/libel posted on a blog or internet forum:

http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...3-399a0b9b7c46

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

In basic terms it means that it is clearer that the posters of comments are responsible for their own posts - It is up to websites how they handle posts which have the potential of being deemed defamatory but they have the option that if a post is made which is complained about, the poster of the post will be given opportunity to decide whether to remove the post or stand by it and leave it in place, on the condition they give their full contact information to the website owners to be made available either voluntarily or on order of a court should the complainant wish to sue for defamation, and the complainant can sue the source of the post directly.

(as Wiki puts it - '' introducing a defence for website operators hosting user-generated content (provided they comply with a procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned or otherwise remove it);; )

Basically if you say stuff on a website, you should be willing to back it up and give your full details should it be complained about, else it will be removed.

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

[Mr Muffet]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

What exactly does this mean for forums such as Legal Beagles, MSE and the like ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

Oh yeah, that'd be useful to add - Cheers Charity xx

[charitynjw]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/...04620/contents

[Amethyst]

Re: Defamation Act 2013

The Defamation Act 2013 will come into force on 1st January 2014 Minister for Justice Lord McNally announced in the House of Lords yesterday, read his speech here.

This will mean that England and Wales will have the new libel law we have all called for over the last four years.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of both noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is very much the godfather of this Act, and I have benefited from his wisdom over the whole three years. As he says, the end is nigh, in that the Act will come into force on 1 January 2014, including these regulations. He points to the fact that although the Act itself will, I hope, give the kind of balance between freedom and the rights of defamed which will stand the test of time, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, have said, legislators will always have the problem of how fast technology moves. I am not one of those who believe that new communications technologies should be beyond governance, but it is going to be a continuing challenge. The noble Lord rightly points to areas such as copyright, privacy and cybercrime, which we will continue to grapple with. But we set an example by being flexible and, as both noble Lords indicated, by underpinning free speech as far as we can and avoiding overregulation.



Information: www.libelreform.org

Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013

http://www.publications.parliament.u...13111956000130

Lovely comment by Lord Lester

In one sense, we are trying to do something which King Canute’s courtiers failed to do. They could not stop the tide from coming in and we cannot in this country, by our one system alone, deal with all abuses on the world wide web. However, I would be sceptical about trying to seek too much international regulation of the internet because I fear that that would, unlike these regulations, be too coercive of free speech and too much overregulation.

I congratulate the noble Lord and the Government on these regulations. They are probably the last word that we will say in this House about the process of completing the work on the Defamation Act, which has taken three careful years by the noble Lord and his team, and by the other place. I am very glad to be present today to welcome these regulations.

:beagle:

and Lord Beecham (about Lord Lester)

I am bound to say that the Minister reminds me less of Moses bringing down the tablets than perhaps Daniel exercising judgment. I should like to think that I was descended from one or other; I may be remotely connected but I do not think that I am descended from either of them.

I do love the HoL.

and a very useful speech explaining the ins and outs of the regulations (Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013) coming in in January....

To trigger the process, a person complaining about a statement posted on an operator’s website must send the operator a notice of complaint. Regulation 2 and Section 5(6) of the Act set out the information that must be included in a notice of complaint.

These provisions require that the notice must state where on the website the statement was posted, set out what the statement says and explain why it is defamatory of the complainant, and explain what meaning the complainant attributes to the statement and what aspects he or she believes are factually inaccurate or are opinions not supported by fact. The notice must also confirm that the complainant does not have sufficient information about the poster to bring proceedings directly against him or her.

The complainant does not have to provide detailed evidence to support what is said, but the intention is that the poster should have sufficient information to reach an informed decision on how to respond. The complainant must also provide his or her name and an e-mail address at which he or she can be contacted, but can ask the operator not to provide this to the poster of the statement. These provisions were supported by a substantial majority of those who provided views on the content of the regulations.

Where the complainant does not provide all the required information, to retain the defence Regulation 4 provides that the operator must inform the complainant of this in writing within 48 hours of receipt of the notice of complaint, and must tell the complainant what is required for a notice to be valid. In common with other instances under the regulations where an operator is required to take action within 48 hours, this time period excludes non-business days such as weekends. The operator is not required to specify exactly what it considers is wrong with the notice that the complainant has sent. This avoids imposing any obligation on an operator to guide or advise the complainant.