Libel on the internet
Discussion
Anyone have a clear understanding of how the libel laws work regards the internet?
Lets say someone posted a message saying something like "TopOnePercent cheats on his wife with his dog", given its untrue, can it be construed as libel? Also, as TopOnePercent isn't my real name, would that vary the outcome?
For clarity, I'm not taking legal action against anyone due to my rhinoceros skinned hide.
Lets say someone posted a message saying something like "TopOnePercent cheats on his wife with his dog", given its untrue, can it be construed as libel? Also, as TopOnePercent isn't my real name, would that vary the outcome?
For clarity, I'm not taking legal action against anyone due to my rhinoceros skinned hide.
Rovinghawk, you are out of date, as juries in libel cases are becoming a thing of the past. Defamatory meaning (or its absence) was and is established by Judges, anyway. Juries, when they (more rarely now) appear in libel cases, decide on truth and falsehood and the presence or absence of malice and other matters.
Libel law received a major reform when the Defamation Act 2013 came into force in January 2014.
The statement that the OP refers to would probably not be actionable because it is unlikely to cause serious harm. No one would pay it any heed. It also counts as crude and vulgar abuse and this is not actionable.
A statement that is false and which causes serious harm is libellous if made about a person who is named or who can be identified by people possessed of extraneous info. Thus if the OP's real identity is well known on a forum and someone defames him, he may sue.
The defamatory meaning of words can be established by inference and innuendo as well as by plain meaning. See the Sally Bercow Tweet case last year.
The maker of a defamatory statement is liable for the damage that it causes unless he or she can prove the statement to be true or can establish one of the recognised defences other than truth. These include the new defence of honest opinion, which replaces the now abolished defence of fair comment.
Qualified privilege is another defence. For example, a statement made by someone with a social, legal or moral duty to make it to a person with a corresponding interest in receiving it is privileged unless actuated by malice. Thus a job reference and a complaint to a regulator or police officer are protected, absent malice.
There are statutory protections for operators of websites on which defamatory material is posted by others.
Libe law brings into play the right to free expression guaranteed by article 10 ECHR, and also the right to private life guaranteed by article 8 ECHR.
I could go on, but do you really want a treatise on this? For the benefit of Zeeky, this is a broad summary aimed at lay people. It is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of every single permutation of libel law.
Libel law received a major reform when the Defamation Act 2013 came into force in January 2014.
The statement that the OP refers to would probably not be actionable because it is unlikely to cause serious harm. No one would pay it any heed. It also counts as crude and vulgar abuse and this is not actionable.
A statement that is false and which causes serious harm is libellous if made about a person who is named or who can be identified by people possessed of extraneous info. Thus if the OP's real identity is well known on a forum and someone defames him, he may sue.
The defamatory meaning of words can be established by inference and innuendo as well as by plain meaning. See the Sally Bercow Tweet case last year.
The maker of a defamatory statement is liable for the damage that it causes unless he or she can prove the statement to be true or can establish one of the recognised defences other than truth. These include the new defence of honest opinion, which replaces the now abolished defence of fair comment.
Qualified privilege is another defence. For example, a statement made by someone with a social, legal or moral duty to make it to a person with a corresponding interest in receiving it is privileged unless actuated by malice. Thus a job reference and a complaint to a regulator or police officer are protected, absent malice.
There are statutory protections for operators of websites on which defamatory material is posted by others.
Libe law brings into play the right to free expression guaranteed by article 10 ECHR, and also the right to private life guaranteed by article 8 ECHR.
I could go on, but do you really want a treatise on this? For the benefit of Zeeky, this is a broad summary aimed at lay people. It is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of every single permutation of libel law.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 14th May 08:39
Generally speaking; it depends on whether you are pretending to tell the truth, or whether it's clearly an insult or joke.
I'm pretty sure it would also need to identify you as an individual rather than a vague alias.
"Mr Smith who trades at Audi Bristol is a cheat." Is possibly libel.
"BurgerVan27 fondles goats" isn't.
Aha. I see BreadVan has posted while I was typing.
I'm pretty sure it would also need to identify you as an individual rather than a vague alias.
"Mr Smith who trades at Audi Bristol is a cheat." Is possibly libel.
"BurgerVan27 fondles goats" isn't.
Aha. I see BreadVan has posted while I was typing.
Edited by Snowboy on Wednesday 14th May 08:42
Identification can be established by extraneous facts in some cases, Snowboy.
In a very old case, "she is a w
e, and a pocky we too" was considered to be mere crude and vulgar abuse, but "she is a we" would have been actionable.
In general, people can speak freely on the net,and so they should, and we should all have thick skins about nasty things said about us, but people are not able to post just anything that they like with impunity. Sites like PH have their own internal rules anyway, and if website owners get sued or threatened with a lawsuit because of someone mouthing off on the site the website owner will often identify the errant poster to the claimant, so the cloak of anonymity is illusory.
In a very old case, "she is a w
e, and a pocky we too" was considered to be mere crude and vulgar abuse, but "she is a we" would have been actionable.In general, people can speak freely on the net,and so they should, and we should all have thick skins about nasty things said about us, but people are not able to post just anything that they like with impunity. Sites like PH have their own internal rules anyway, and if website owners get sued or threatened with a lawsuit because of someone mouthing off on the site the website owner will often identify the errant poster to the claimant, so the cloak of anonymity is illusory.
TopOnePercent said:
I'm not gay 
In that case they've all been lying......TopOnePercent said:
he is better looking than some if my exes tho...
I know the feeling.TopOnePercent said:
BV - you really should think about charging for some of this stuff!
I've offered him a martini made with home-brew vermouth; he indicated he didn't want payment.Guys, there are serious commercial opportunities for us here. We need to film this spectacle and sell the movie on the internet. I rely on you guys to know better than I do which are the most profitable Frankie Vaughan webfeeds. Please all sign the attached 947 page contract. No need to read, it's all just standard boiler plate.
Breadvan72 said:
Guys, there are serious commercial opportunities for us here. We need to film this spectacle and sell the movie on the internet. I rely on you guys to know better than I do which are the most profitable Frankie Vaughan webfeeds. Please all sign the attached 947 page contract. No need to read, it's all just standard boiler plate.
No problem. I can also provide a glass coffee table, in reasonable condition.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff