Mumsnet Talk

To think that threads are being removed because they are 'potentially' libellous (thinking about the Safecobs thread) is very sad as it makes it very difficult for people to find proper information on the internet.

On Mumsnet you can say all kind of things about certain NHS hospitals, but if you say something about this unscrupulous horse trader the threads are being removed and more people may become a victim.

AIBU to think that before removing such a thread Mumsnet HQ should seek a legal opinion rather than what could be seen as pandering to the threats of unscrupulous individuals?

dont sweat the small stuff OP

and dont rely on MN (0r wikipedia) as an accurate info source anyway

How long do you think it would take them to keep seeking legal opinions?

And why do you think they're not experienced enough to see potential libel when they see it?

There's plenty of information on the internet already...and some of it is far more factual than you'll read on internet forums.

to be honest that thread was people sharing their experiences - negative ones mainly - I hardly see it as libelous - odd to remove it

Most of us cottoned on months ago that theres
no rhyme or reason to posts and threads which are
Deleted. I expect it depends if someone at MNHQ is
mummy mates with someone working for a particular company

So feel free to start your own website where you're legally liable for other people's conversations. No-one's stopping you.

Thing is Paris it isn't small stuff. It's people parting thousands of pounds for something they've been told is safe & it isn't.

If this was a car dealership, you wouldn't say don't sweat it. It pisses me off how they manage to wheedle out of it <all the bloody time>, it's very disappointing.

I didn't see the original thread. In general, though, the issue that Mumsnet faces in situations like this is one of a burden of proof.

Say there's a company called Sharks Ltd. A few people have a bad experience with them and post about it on Mumsnet. Sharks Ltd gets their solicitor to send a letter to Mumsnet saying "There's libellous material on your website. Get rid of it or we'll see you in court".

What's Mumsnet to do? Mumsnet can't necessarily check the veracity of the complaints. They're a parent's website, not a private detective agency. For all Mumsnet knows those complaints are false and are coming from a competitor of Sharks Ltd. Even if Mumsnet thinks that those complaints may have some truth behind them, how can they prove it in a court of law?

All Mumsnet knows about the posters making the complaints are their email addresses and the IP addresses they log in from. It would be incredibly easy for the posters to vanish into the ether the moment Mumsnet gets hauled up in court and asked to prove that what was published was true.

As ecclesvet says, if you really want to discuss this issue in a way that means that you won't get deleted by someone else then set up your own website (I'd recommend on based in the US as they have stronger free speech laws than we do) and post away to your hearts content.

Mumsnet has neither the legal nor moral obligation to let you post what you want and potentially libel who you want. Quite the opposite in fact.

You have to remember that MNHQ have had their fingers badly burnt in the past, and took a big financial hit because of it. If they are sometimes now over-cautious, I think they have good reason to be so.

They are personally responsible if "MN" gets sued, and have to weigh up whether they are prepared to take the risk over a specific issue. If they know the comments are fair, and/or that the impact of the issue affects childrens welfare, then they may choose to take a risk. At other times they choose not to. The impact of MN going off the air would be a lot bigger than a potential lack of information on one (fairly niche) topic which is not specifically about parenting.

How do you know their solicitor hadn't read the thread?

How do you know it's proper information anyway? You could post that XYZ had dreadful customer service and did <insert story> here.

But actually you're a disgruntled ex-employee who was sacked for stealing... but I can't tell that and you can hide behind an anonymous name and say all sorts of things.

Good point DeWe .... it's easy enough to start a fire on an internet site, surely anyone with a genuine greivance would go to court?

I watched the thread about Safecobs but felt far too intimidated by the discussion to join in.

Maybe Mumsnet know something other users don't?

But then Stinkyminkymoo it's not small stuff either if you're running a business and you're being tried and convicted online. It all felt very uncomfortable.

There is still a thread about Safecobs (just seen it in active convos), so it's not the whole subject that's a problem, it's the appearance of individual problematic posts.

There is nothing to stop anyone establishing their own website/blog to hilight an issue in the ways they believe necessary. It is solely and totally up to MNHQ what they are happy to publish.

janey68, I presume you have evidence for that allegation? Because I'm sure you wouldn't just make such a thing up, would you?

Surely it also depends on the language you use to describe a company, and whether you are merely recounting the facts of your own experience or drawing conclusions from that.

If I say I used company A to order product B, and it arrived much later than promised, was already damaged when opened, and then the company refused to replace or repair the product and called me a cow on the phone, then that is a statement of facts as I experienced them. People can use that info and make their own decision. BUT, if I say 'hey all of you, company A is total shite, just don't ever use them,' then it's getting much closer to libellous, surely. At that point you're not merely making a judgement, but inciting others too to avoid company A and thus potentially damaging their business (which may or may not be with good reason).

Is that why you keep asking for posts to be reported?

Because else you could be jointly liable for defamation with the poster, but not actually realise there was a problem until it was reported to you?
If that makes sense

How much would it cost MN to engage a lawyer to look over every single possibly libelous thread?

I seriously doubt they have that sort of money!

Since they've already had to deal with solicitors more than once, can you really blame them for not wanting to take chances? And deleting if something is reported to them and it looks to them like it might be a problem?

Will you pay the bill if legal action is successful? i'm sure if you commit to indemnifying them against all costs, they'll happily leave threads to stand.

Otherwise - since it's their money, their business, their livelihood and their arses, I think we can let them get rid of potential threats, don't you?

They are running a somewhat risky business.

I am sure mumsnet, like any other publisher, will have a professional indemnity insurance policy and it is likely that a requirement of that policy will be to have adequate procedures in place to takedown potentially libellous content as soon as they become aware of it. Failure to react quickly could mean that not only do they and the poster get sued, but that their insurance would be invalidated and so they would be liable for costs and damages. I am sure these things are not taken lightly by any reputable publishing company

Hiya, amillion, how's tricks?

Yup, they are. Which is why it makes sense to minimise the risks as far as possible, doesn't it? They're already taking more of a risk than some other sites by not having a very heavy mod presence and by allowing a lot more than some sites I could mention . Imagine if they swapped styles? <shudder>

So, if we all stopped reporting posts...you wouldn't be liable for anything. Then we could talk about what ever we liked, all the time?!

Oh, I see. You didn't mean stuff that us plebs complain about!

I'm intrigued and mystified now....what kind of stuff does Mr (or Mrs! Tsk Tsk MNOlivia!) Hot Shot Lawyer complain about? And shouldn't he/she be busy hot-shifting, not reading mumsnet?

I mean MNHelen

Sorry, I am more confused than before.[probably me being a bit thick].

If no one reports, than you are not liable.
That is, not us reporting or not a solicitor reporting.

But, if someone reports something, either a poster or a solicitor, or presumably anyone on the planet, once your attention has been drawn to it, then you are potentially liable?

So really, you dont want reports from anyone of anything possibly defamatory, because then you may have to do something.

Is that right?

So anyone in danger of being exposed as less than honest can just report a thread and have it pulled? That's handy for them.

I think what tends to happen is that certain people or organisations keep an eye on everything that refers to them on the internet, and spew out letters on anything they consider potentially libellous.

In order to be fair, MNHQ has to listen to us plebs as much as to noisy protective organisations, so they want us to look out for our own interests by reporting posts.

If we didn't then the only people who would have that kind of protection would be the ones who have press agencies to haunt the internet for them, protecting their (dubious) reputations.

Until quite recently, I used to be an administrator on a large and popular, sports related forum. We moderated it very lightly (pretty much like MN, to be honest) and also had a post reporting function. One of the pleasures of that particular forum is the way that subjects can go off into tangents and in the main, there was very little in the way of censorship beyond an intolerance of any sort of hate speech. Despite the popularity of the site, it attracted little in the way of outside control either.

However, over recent years, on those occasions when individual posts have come a little close to being potentially actionable, very shirty communications have been quick to arrive from Messrs. Sue, Grabbit & Runne and site administrators can't ignore them or reply with a simple "Piss Off". Sometimes the resultant censorship appears harsh but actually, so are the consequences now that it is well known that site owners/administrators AND individual contributors can be held liable (and expensively liable) for what goes onto the forum.

Reported posts are probably a bit of a red herring, tbh. It doesn't matter whether anyone reports them or not. You still can't condone actionable material being left on the site.

The gist of it is that once a post has been brought to the attention of MNHQ,whether by a member of the site or an outside agency such as a lawyer/company director etc it is their duty to remove it if it's potentially libellous.

But if no one reports it Pandemoniaa, and I mean anyone on the planet, then nothing happens does it?

Though I suppose in theory, MN is potentially liable for ever more?

I know this might seem like a technicality, but I'm curious: if I libelled someone, and no-one reported it, does that mean that I am solely responsible, as the person who posted it, and MNHQ are not liable at all?

Pixel if you are dissatisfied with the way MN tries to keep itself out of court feel free to set up your own forum. You can then post what you want and moderate it as you feel is appropriate.

My understanding is that they can't be sued fur libel by Mr BigShot and his client until they have given mn a warning that there is libellous material on the site.

Once they have given that warning, however, the onus is on mnhq to remove it pdq. As long as mnhq do that, it isn't worth suing, as mnhq would use as their defense "we didn't know it was there, we dealt will it immediately when it was brought to our attention".

And yes, that does mean that companies with enough money to have MrBS and his friends watch every thread on ever talkboard and every blog on the internet can close down any negative publicity pdq. But there isn't anything mn can do about that. That' life - loadsamoney companies can skew public opinion. They've been doing it via advertising for years.

I think there is a poster who may be patrolling the boards as Maryz described.

I'm sure there is more than one amillion.

I'm sure that most of the big companies watch boards like this, and look out for their own names.

I mean you only have to see how quickly J.o.h.n.h.e.m.ming appears on the adoption boards every time his name is mentioned to see how easy it is for people to have some sort of script updating them any time they are mentions.

I remember a thread where everyone suggested referring to big companies in strange ways - e.g. motherfuckingcare and tresco and shitsbury's - there were some very funny suggestions, to avoid them knowing we were talking about them.

amillion why would it be so bad for posters to report threads to MNHQ to protect their favourite site from potential closure?

I havent a clue what you are talking about greenhill.

Amillion I mean reporting threads that could be libellous, rather than posting potentially libellous comments!

Yes, look at how quickly reps from companies come on if a poster has a complaint and airs it on here.

Sorry, still dont understand.

Beer, I have never seen that. Didnt know it happened at all.
How do you know? Do they say they are from company x?

YY, beertricks most companies have cuttings companies that collect any statements relating to their names, so even if they do not see the statement themselves, it will be collected on their behalf. And acted upon.

So if I write a T supermarket, a M burger chain, and S swimwear chain, that would alert the companies?

amillion I suppose it would depend on how sensitive their cutting service was, how it was patrolled and how sensitive they were to any criticism.

Yes, they do amillion.

It's not a foolproof way of getting customer service, though

So there is far from free speech . Though I have worked out free speech doesnt really exist at all.

I suppose it would depend on how sensitive their cutting service was, how it was patrolled and how sensitive they were to any criticism.

Indeed. A certain car manufacturer have never threatened me with legal action or had posts deleted for saying their cars are shit.

Free speech doesn't work on sites like MN, amillion, no.

As explained above, there' s no reason we should expect it to, really.

ooh, I would like to see it in action.
Do all the posts then get deleted?

eg, I sometimes see on here, posters complaining about certain companies that keep our electical goods functioning,certain companies that provide other sources of heating and cooking, and certain companies that help our tvs to work.
But I have yet to see a response from their PR or customer service departments.

To be cynical: free speech only works if nobody else hears it, nobody else acts upon it and nobody else is in a position to do anything about it.

Otherwise we are in a free and fair democracy.

Just be thankful we are in a country in which we are not randomly thrown in prison, tortured and killed.

Many people do not have the luxury of free speech.

The larger companies probably don't give a stuff about whinges on a website. Why would they? Those complaints aren't affecting their profits one bit.

No, the posts don't get deleted afaik.

It isn't speech, a million. It's publishing.

In the UK we do not have free speech in the sense that you can make libelous statements with impunity.

Nor do we have free speech in the sense that person A can insist that person/organisation B publishes person A's potentially libelous statements (which is the situation here).

We do have free speech in the sense that if you want to walk down the street carrying a placard saying "Don't do business with EvilSharks Ltd because they'll lie to you, steal from you and poo in your handbag", then go right ahead.

Didnt know people could do what you said in your 3rd paragraph Snorbs.

And yes TheDoctrine, I am forever muddling up free speech, defamation, slander etc.

Beer, I am confused[again] then. If it is not larger companies that are coming on MN to try and put the record straight, then I am confused as to who would.

snorbs the poo in your handbag comment made me do a SIOB and desperately do some pelvic floor exercises.

amillion, it depends whether they think it will affect their business significantly, I suppose.
If it would look better to come on here and be seen to try and put an individual's problem right, ignore or demand posts are taken down.

You can hold a placard saying pretty much whatever you want. The Police won't stop you. Well, not unless a) they regard it as behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or b) you're trying to do it in that ridiculous area around Parliament where you need a permit before you can hold a protest.

You might still subsequently find yourself on the receiving end of a slander/libel court case of course. If what you say is true and you can demonstrate it's true then that's a valid defence. There are other defences too. But the point is that you'd be taking personal responsibility for what you are claiming.

Free speech doesn't mean that you can make any allegation you want and there is no come-back on you. It doesn't work like that and I'm glad it doesn't. If someone starts posting letters round my neighbours houses saying "Snorbs Eats Kittens" then damn right I want some way to stop them repeating their lies.

So, something like the Safecobs thread, presumably someone from Safecobs emailed MN.
Likewise, that school.

Possibly, amillion. Although as discussed upthread, it needn't be someone affiliated to a company etc who points out potentially actionable posts.

as a very loose example, and not to out it, I wrote a thread about something last year I was very unhappy about, quite rightly, to do with something I was very disastisfied with, in order to get advice on how to proceed (following??!) The advice I received was excellent and I went ahead with what I decided to do, only to learn from the person I was dealing with that they knew all about my thread! Which was mad! Anyway, that's a sort of example..I think

Yes, exactly amillion. But on the other hand I have occasionally reported threads where I think that if the company saw it the shit might hit the fan - I can't remember the example now, but there was a really good reason for me doing it . I'm sure I'll remember in a bit. I also reported a gina ford thread once, and a MMcCann one, because I knew they would turn nasty and the quicker they went the better.

I have seen companies come on here - I think Comet (of all people) did it once, and the op had her problem sorted very quickly.

I don't think it's so likely now on Mumsnet, as most people who have a genuine grievance will take it to Facebook or Twitter - and the companies are on those like flies on shite.

I love your subtlety there emin; very good [approving]

Do you think MN has had its day as a market force, then, Maryz?

I was thinking about that earlier, in light of this thread. Larger companies do seem to have given up on the heavyhanded challenges to issues thrown up by members and it is largely the smaller concerns that care.

I expect that that must have happened amillionyears at least Lia's cutlets on Safecob seemed mightily pleased that the threads on safecobs were removed.

Gosh, no, I don't at all think it's had it's day - I think that as there are more and more members they will be watching us even more closely.

But I think the necessity to actually come on a thread as TescoMary [arf] and say "we have seen this and it is certainly not how we would like to react, so please op contact this email tomorrow and I will deal with you personally" as used to happen isn't so important.

Simply because everything nowadays is even more instant than mumsnet.

You can get an immediate response from Tesco Facebook or Twitter (apparently, I have no idea how either work, because I am an old gimmer).

Though I suppose in a way more members also means slight dilution of issues, possibly. In the old days of only a few hundred active members meant that if I (as a known poster) said I had a shit experience with a company, every single person on the site would see it. Now will hundreds of thousands of members, and some arriving only to spam or troll, a similar post might get missed.

If that makes sense at all.

I didn't see the Safecobs threads - for quite a while I thought we were talking about sweetcorn, not horses .

I thought the school one was bread, so ignored it for about 3 months!

I never saw the school thread at all. What was that about?

I mean, obvs a school, but how was it libellous, ffs? Most threads about schools seem to be general moaning about how they don't recognise what a genius the op's little darling is.

x-posted there Helen. Clear as mud, that.

In other words, if a big company is being precious and are afraid of mumsnetters they have a right to reply .

Serious alleged Child Protection failures, Maryz.

Ah, I get the difference Helen. On a thread about X company they can say "oops, sorry", but Y company can't come on and say "come to us instead, we would never do that".

I missed that Beer - sounds a bit narsty .

Beer, you and I may not be thinking about the school.

The same school, amillion? Hmm, it's possible, yes. I don't want to dredge it all up for this thread though, so I'll just leave it at that, I think.

No, Helen, don't worry! Was just explaining to Maryz why it wasn't the usual 'Head of year At X Academy Is A Jerk' type school thread.