Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

A gentle reminder about libel...

20:01 / 11.03.06

Hi guys. I'm kind of nervous to talk about this on the board, so I need you guys to be relatively calm about the whole thing and bear with me. However, I think you need to be kept informed about this stuff, so here we go.

I landed for a conference in Austin, Texas last night to discover some correspondence from a large and well-respected UK law firm demanding that I remove some posts from the board's archive which they argued were libellous and defamatory. The letter threatened court proceedings and potentially damages if they were not removed.

I looked at the posts in question and I'm unsure whether or not they are libellous or not and so I've taken them down for review while I think about the issue in more depth. Certainly, however, they were confusing enough for me to not be able to tell immediately, so I'd just like to ask people again to be a bit more careful while posting.

I'm not going to go into any more detail at the moment about which thread was affected, and who the threatened lawsuit came from, because I don't want to inspire an angry response for the board that would most likely get me into more difficulties, but I do want to apologise to you guys for having to do this stuff and let you know what's happening. Also, I don't want people using this as a reason to get highly restrictive about what people can say on the board - this is our first major problem in a great many years. But again, do be aware of this stuff and remember that if you do say something libellous online then in the rare circumstance that someone picks it up and wants to act upon it, you guys are as vulnerable as people like me.

If you want to know more about libel law, there's a reasonable article on Wikipedia: Libel

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

20:52 / 11.03.06

Fair enough, Tom. (Although I do have to add... JESUS!!!)

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:04 / 11.03.06

(In explanation of my last comment- I thought you were talking about something completely different to what you actually were. Soz!)

*

22:28 / 11.03.06

Oh, I knew it. Haus, WOULD YOU PLEASE stop hounding Gartn Mortinsin about his LOVELY WIFE???!1!5?

In more seriousness... Er, sorry this happened and I'll keep an eye out for stuff like this.

22:30 / 11.03.06

The people who wrote the possibly offending posts, will they be notified by PM? Just curious.

I'm nervous that it may have been me spouting libel about some great person who I love and Barbelith loves (yes?)

23:08 / 11.03.06

Can you handle this unsupported, Tom? Barbelith doesn't need a lawyer, does it?

23:52 / 11.03.06

I'm nervous that it may have been me spouting libel

I think we all are. It's part of my job to stop people doing this and it bothers me that it might have been me.
Anyway, Tom seems to be having fun. Hell, he's even getting Segway action (well, spectating, anyhoo):

02:03 / 12.03.06

I actually have had a second opportunity to ride a Segway, which I still completely adore. But back to the topic in question - I'm trying to work out whether to let the affected posters know or not, for the reasons I said before - because it's very important that they don't react badly and act up in response to the legal threat, and it's easier for people not to act up if they don't know it was them.

But basically, just remember that if you say things about people that aren't true and could affect them in their trade or profession or lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people, then they may have a case to press. As I say, I don't think the board needs to be quaking in their shoes about this - all of you can go about your business as usual - just bear it in mind.

02:14 / 12.03.06

Prince Charles is controlled by semi-sentient parasites.

02:30 / 12.03.06

B-but everyone was quite complimentary about Sax's novel, weren't they?

Mr S, if you're out there... it doesn't have to be this way...

03:07 / 12.03.06

I'd be careful about threatening a board that has motherfuckin' magicians on it.

03:16 / 12.03.06

all of you can go about your business as usual

Except Ganesh. Stop sacrificing young virgins to Tom, Ganesh. For the love of Christmas. Please....

In all seriousness, I hope this blows over and Tom's life is unaffected by this.

miss wonderstarr

07:38 / 12.03.06

It was Neil, wasn't it.

09:45 / 12.03.06

It came from teh bleed...

16:30 / 12.03.06

i was jointly sued a few years ago for 10s millions of dollars -- all for something i said on a private email list, whose mailman archives became public and were indexed by google. so i know the headache this can cause! stick with it tom because it will all blow over!

Spyder Todd 2008

18:10 / 12.03.06

Beyond just basically being supportive, is there anyway we can help, Tom?

18:56 / 12.03.06

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News gets away with defamation according to the Robert Greenwald Film Outfoxed:Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism

Taken from Page 56-57 PDF transcript of OUTFOXED
Glick said, “Can I sue him?” And so I called the lawyer
who was in my case of, “Fox versus Dutton and Franken”, and
he says, “Well, the kid has to prove that O’Reilly knew he
was lying, and O’Reilly is so crazy, he lies so
pathologically, that’s it’s harder to prove that O’Reilly
knew he was lying.” So oddly enough, if someone has a
record of crazily lying [LAUGHS] it is harder to sue them
for defamation.

20:28 / 12.03.06

Tom I've also been threatened a few times with libel, we weren't so much afraid of that as they couldn't afford lawyers but we had to remove the postings anyway in case they tried hassling our ISP. However simply stating that the thread had been removed after X had threatened us with libel completely destroyed his standing among many people, the ultimate home goal in fact.

I'd say talk to the people who's posts you've had to edit/delete and just ask that they stay calm and take some time to think about a response. There are many ways to play it smart and make threatening to sue you the worst move, whoever it is, ever made. But we can't make an informed decision until we know some information. I'd certainly be interested in seeing the text of the letter that was sent to you.

www.chillingeffects.org should be able to help as well.

And dude remember we're here to help

.

14:22 / 13.03.06

Tom, were you here for the SXSW Technology Conference?

You didn't even call. For shame!

14:38 / 13.03.06

We go by UK rules? If the person who posted it is in the US or elsewhere, how does that work?

15:28 / 13.03.06

It's very vague, and there haven't been many test cases - no government wants their courts tied up with everyone and their dogs using them to pursue claims.
Scots and UK rules are probably the safest to go by as they are probably some of the most restrictive. Technically, internet posts could probably be tested under any country's legislation, so it makes sense to go with the one people are most likely to use to get their money.

15:45 / 13.03.06

Crikey.

I hope that this isn't too serious Tom.

I'd certainly like to know in general terms what has got us into trouble in order that we can avoid it in the future. I am also obviously hugely curious.

I understand why that might not be ideal right now though.

15:47 / 13.03.06

Best of luck Tom. Let us know if you need any help or resources when making your moves. You have a pretty tight community here for you and we're more than happy to assist.

16:12 / 13.03.06

I'd certainly like to know in general terms what has got us into trouble in order that we can avoid it in the future. I am also obviously hugely curious.

Me too, I guess that unless I made the comments then I probably won't know about their contents- although it does seem like a sensible thing to let the persons that made the comments know that they were considered libelous.

It also may be worth letting moderators know what has been considered libelous- as it could help avoid trouble in the future- specifically for Tom as he is the host in the eyes of the law.

Is there no disclaimer that you could run to help distance Tom from legal action as the views on the board are not all his?

16:25 / 13.03.06

The opinions expressed on Barbelith.com are those of the individual posters. Content published here is not read or approved by the board operators before it is posted and does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the board's owners, operators, hosts, or service providers.

09:21 / 14.03.06

Disclaimers don't work, he may be legally responsible for publishing content on this site according to UK law, Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd is the precedent on this. Established the principal that if you remove the 'libellous' postings within 48 hours of being contacted you're safe from prosecution.

But one wrinkle in this is that Barbelith is hosted in the US so I would have thought US law would apply. Same thing with any records of who was posting as long as they're all on that server. But I'd definately get a lawyers oppinion on that.

19:02 / 14.03.06

I would have thought US law would apply

It probably would. The trouble is that there's still a grey area over exactly what "Communication" (one of the three tests to prove defamation, which covers the transmission of the alleged defamation) can be construed as on the net.
In the classic model, it meant that you could sue anyone from the proprietor down to the papergirl for circulating the information (although obviously you'd go for the one with the money).
Now, though, the way packets bounce around, it's not just the people who host the servers (although precendent would suggest that's the best people to go after - individuals like Tom are less likly to be worth much), who knows which routers (possibly even yours) is going to have communicated some of the message.
Even the act of clicking on a link could theoreticaly constitute publishing a defamatory statement on your monitor. Unlikely, I know, but just one of those wrinkles that's going to have to be ironed out sooner or later.
However, a retraction and apology is usually enough evidence that you tried to take the proper steps toward redress, so I'd be surprised if Tom had a problem.
Additionally, as I think I've said elsewhere, there's also the question of "Identification". If the defamation was against someone on the board that most people could readily identify (most of us except George and Cameron), it'd be hard to make a case stand up. If we're talking about an author or a sleb, however, it's a different kettle of fish.

19:23 / 14.03.06

We were unfortunately talking about a celebrity.

20:08 / 14.03.06

1. For a few minutes I was terrified that it was Van Halen from the musicians-or-filmmakers thread. Unpredictable man.

2. If you want to talk to me offline about celebrity issues, I do have the ear of a lawyer or two whose business it is avoiding libel & defamation suits from celebrities. You've got my email, right? These are American lawyers working for American newspapers -- actually, hold on, the UK edition on the National Enquirer is in this newsroom, too. So, anyway, for what it's worth.

3. Tom, we love you nearly unconditionally. And I'm using the royal "we" there.

11:48 / 24.03.06

A celebrity?

Hmph.

I thought I had a pretty good idea of who it was, but now...

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:11 / 24.03.06

Let's not speculate, eh? Celebrities have lawyers who can spend an idle moment Googling their clients' names to find things they can then contact to keep their reputation unspotted. It's just a thing.

14:36 / 24.03.06

Question: How does somewhere like Popbitch get away with all their unsubstantiated celebrity gossip and ennuendo?

15:25 / 24.03.06

Popbitch, for one, doesn't. It gets its fair share of injunctions against it. But it generally avoids naming names. (Although Ashley Cole's successful action against The Sun and the NotW, despite the fact that they didn't actually name him, might well recommend even greater caution)

15:32 / 24.03.06

3. Tom, we love you nearly unconditionally. And I'm using the royal "we" there.

More evidence of grant's blindspot when it comes to the monarchy. It's all those references to royal wee that got us into this mess. That black hearted bastard of a Prince.

15:56 / 24.03.06

Gotta speculate to accumulate writs. Let's not. I for one am not too bothered by a few posts being taken down, but note to self, remember libel. Thanks Tom, BTW the Segway is the coolest thing ever I hope you agree.