 |
Mumsnet and Gina FordToday we are taking the extreme step of asking Mumsnet members not to discuss Gina Ford, her parenting methods or her books on our talk boards. We are doing this because Gina Ford's lawyers are demanding that our ISP shut Mumsnet down with immediate effect because they claim Mumsnet is "publishing defamatory statements about our client on an ongoing basis." It is a surreal and rather sad moment. Surreal because, whatever you feel about her, Gina Ford is one of Britain's most respected and widely-followed authorities on raising babies - banning all mention of her on a website for parents is a bit like barring discussion of Manchester United from a football phone-in. Sad because Ms Ford has plenty of fans both among Mumsnet members and here at Mumsnet HQ, indeed she was for some time a member and contributor to the site. Sad, too, because we would not be in this situation, were it not for an antediluvian set of laws that have failed to catch up with the reality of communication on the internet. We think Ms Ford's actions against Mumsnet raise profound questions about the way freedom of speech is balanced against the protection of reputations on the internet. A full report of the dispute would stretch the patience of even the most committed Mumsnetter but here's the five-minute version. In January 2006, Ms Ford emailed us requesting that we take down the transcript of a Q&A interview we had conducted with her several years earlier. The reason she wanted it removed, she explained, was that a number of members had subsequently posted negative things about her. "I really have no wish to get into costly legal wrangles," she wrote. "But on the other hand I will not allow the advice, that I gave through sheer kindness, to be misrepresented on a website that spends much of its time printing propaganda about my methods." We wrote back explaining that since newspapers were free to archive and reproduce interviews they conducted, we saw no reason why we should be prevented from doing the same. On March 1 Ms Ford's lawyers, Foot Anstey, got in touch complaining of "vicious libels" against her and suggesting that our archiving of the Q&A interview constituted an infringement of her copyright. If we removed the interview, the lawyers wrote, Ms Ford would be content "to let the matter rest". On April 1st we agreed to remove it as a gesture of goodwill, but the letters kept coming. On April 5, 2006 Foot Anstey wrote with the following demands: 1. Mumsnet publish a statement disassociating itself from attacks on Ms Ford by some members and making it clear that such postings would not be tolerated. 2. Mumsnet implement a special procedure to monitor all posts relating to Ms Ford on a daily basis and delete any which are derogatory. 3. Mumsnet delete a specified list of 21 threads. 4. Mumsnet take technical steps to ensure that any potentially defamatory postings already deleted from the site should not be accessible through search engines. 5. Mumsnet pay Ms Ford damages and meet her legal costs. We agreed to the first four of these demands but not the fifth and Ms Ford's lawyers responded that despite being "close to a settlement" they would "issue proceedings as soon as possible." We did not hear from Ms Ford or her lawyers again until last week when Foot Anstey wrote reiterating that they were "preparing for litigation" and complaining of a new "sequence of serious defamatory statements". As in the past, we rapidly reviewed and then removed the posts in question, in line with our abuse policy. But this time Ms Ford's lawyers wrote to DSC, the company which hosts Mumsnet, too. They demanded that DSC "disable the website with immediate effect" or risked legal proceedings, citing three allegedly defamatory postings. (You can read this letter in full, here.) Although we do not accept that any of the posts about Ms Ford are defamatory, it is true that some of them have contained personal attacks and have therefore fallen foul of Mumsnet talk policy. That is why we have consistently agreed to remove offending postings as soon as we have been notified of them. This unfortunately has not been enough to satisfy Ms Ford's lawyers: they have repeatedly demanded more drastic - and we believe wholly disproportionate - steps, such as the deletion of whole threads because they contain a single offending post. Their attempt to shut Mumsnet entirely is merely the most extreme example of this kind of sledgehammer approach. So here we are: one of Britain's most wealthy and successful childcare experts demanding the closure of a community website run by mothers to enable parents to swap support, advice and the odd joke. (And if you are in any doubt about just how much support we give each other, take a look at this or this.) Quite apart from the fact that Ms Ford's legal moves now threaten our very existence, we think this case raises broader issues which anyone who cares about freedom of speech should worry about. Some of these relate to British libel law and how it applies to bulletin boards. Although Mumsnet believes the vast majority of postings about which Ms Ford has complained are defensible debate in that they relate to her methods, rather than her in person, it is probably true that most people would not have enjoyed being on the receiving end of some of the jokes or more robust comments. But bulletin boards differ from traditional media like newspapers and magazines in two key respects. First it is impossible for websites like Mumsnet to pre-moderate postings on their bulletin boards the way newspapers or magazines pre-vet material they publish. There are simply too many postings (getting on for 1000 new discussions are started and 10,000 posts made on Mumsnet each day). And it's not just because Mumsnet is a shoestring operation; most major publishers run their bulletin boards just as we do: they urge users not to abuse people - common courtesy demands this - and then act as quickly as possible when anyone alerts them to a potential problem. There is a widespread acceptance among internet publishers that if society values the immediacy, honesty and personal nature of bulletin board communication, then pre-moderation is not an option. It's interesting to note that comments considerably more damaging to Ms Ford than anything that has appeared on Mumsnet exist on a number of other bulletin boards against which she has not, to our knowledge, taken any action; it is hard to resist the impression that she has chosen to pursue Mumsnet because she knows our resources are more limited than some of these other publishers. There is another key respect in which bulletin boards differ from the kind of traditional media for which our libel laws are constructed. As anyone who has participated in one knows, a thread on a discussion board has more in common with a conversation between a group of people than a newspaper article or TV broadcast. In a given Mumsnet exchange, someone may say something nasty about someone but they will invariably be challenged by other users arguing precisely the opposite. In the case of an individual like Gina Ford, who strongly polarizes opinion, critical postings are almost always countered by glowing tributes from her fans. Anyone who spent a few hours on the Mumsnet boards would come away with the view that Ms Ford inspires admiration and appreciation just as much as she does scepticism and hostility. In all of this, the relationship between Mumsnet and the posters on our boards is analogous to that between a pub and its regulars. If the publican overhears a patron making a profoundly unpleasant remark, or if someone draws his or her attention to such a comment, he might be expected to pitch him out of the bar. But to suggest that the publican should be held legally responsible for everything said around every table in his establishment simply doesn't make sense. Pushing this analogy a little further, Ms Ford asking DSC to shut down Mumsnet is the rough equivalent of demanding that the owner of the pub freehold shut down the place because one of the regulars said something defamatory. Mumsnet has sought to meet and resolve the concerns expressed by Ms Ford. Mumsnet has offered to mediate any dispute she has - both offers have been declined. We sincerely wish to avoid a personal battle with Ms Ford, a figure who, as we have made clear, is widely respected both by us and many of our members. (Quite apart from the fact that we can think of much better things to spend our very limited resources on, Ms Ford's first legal complaint arrived just days after both Mumsnet founders gave birth and the dispute has already devoured any hope of maternity leave.) But the principles at stake are very definitely worth fighting for and we would be very surprised if Ms Ford did not think so too. In the US, sites like Mumsnet are protected by a law giving immunity to intermediaries that host third party content. As internet law professor, Michael Geist, argued recently on the BBC website here: "Given how easily content can be forced off the internet with claims of defamation, the law creates a significant restriction of free speech. Intermediaries [such as websites] are understandably reluctant to ignore threats of litigation, yet without a legal safe harbour that protects them from liability, it is likely that the number of questionable defamation claims will continue to rise." As of today we're sorry to say you can no longer discuss Ms Ford on Mumsnet. Even if we were to win the threatened legal action the cost in financial terms, and just as importantly, time, for us as mothers of young children is not worth the candle. We will, however, lobby hard for a change in the law so that the concerns summarised above are addressed. We hope you'll think that worth fighting for too. Thank you for all your support and understanding. We hope you continue to enjoy and benefit from Mumsnet. Mumsnet HQ 6 Aug 2006 The most recent statements from both Gina Ford and Mumsnet can be found here. Our blog can be found on Comment is free at the Guardian. |
| | Printer-friendly copy | | about us | advertising | contact us | development calendar | | © � 2006 mumsnet | disclaimer | |