Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MNHQ

The government has published a draft libel reform bill; we'd like to know what you think

40 replies

RowanMumsnet · 17/03/2011 11:25

As lots of you will know, MNHQ is a part of the Libel Reform Coalition, which has been campaigning for major changes in the libel laws in England and Wales. This week the government published its draft defamation bill, which is intended to address some of the major criticisms of the way libel currently works; more background here. The government is now seeking people's views on whether it is on the right track; the consultation period will end in June.

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that the treatment of web hosts - like MNHQ - in the draft bill is very underdeveloped. We will be feeding back our thoughts on possible ways forward to the consultation body, and as ever we'd be interested to hear what you think. (If you look at paragraphs 140 onwards in the consultation document, you'll see some of the specific proposals that are being considered; you can also read the Libel Reform Coalition's response to the bill.)

Thanks,

MNHQ x

OP posts:
BecauseImWorthIt · 19/03/2011 12:09

Lenin - the problem is that you might say something libellous about me -"that BIWI has a huge, spotty arse and eats babies for breakfast", for example - and I can get very upset because that is defamation of my character. Because of course I'm not that fat.

But rather than sue you, I would sue Mumsnet - they (as far as I understand it in the current set up) would be liable for your comments.

The reality of course, is that a discussion forum owner can't/shouldn't be held responsible for the things that have been said by individuals posting on there.

The whole SWMNBN debacle was a good example of this.

Even if MN (or other sites) had official moderators, there are so many threads, posts and posters that it would be impossible to monitor the site effectively. And it would be a massive financial drain - possibly making a site like this commercially unviable.

The consultation, as far as I understand it, is to decide what the possible alternatives are - i.e. there has been a recognition that this needs reform.

(I hope that this is correct, but this is my understanding of it).

Will try and read the rest of it later ...

MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 19/03/2011 11:04

Ooh vinestein, I'd love to see the parody thing in there (is a hobbyhorse of mine) but I don't think it is. Some of the reformers reckon it's covered by the 'honest opinion'/context stuff, but I don't think it is - or not completely, anyway.

OP posts:
vinestein · 18/03/2011 20:26

I'd love to read this over the weekend and will give you my views then, I have to dash now- I'd like to see if there's any provision for parody

LeninGrad · 18/03/2011 20:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BecauseImWorthIt · 18/03/2011 18:37

And that was the easy bit!

MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 18/03/2011 18:24

All present and correct so far...

OP posts:
BecauseImWorthIt · 18/03/2011 18:01

OK. So they are consulting on the issue of what happens when something that might be considered defamatory is posted.

Definition of defamatory:

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person

( From this online dictionary

And the issue is that current libel laws mean that the site on which this has been posted is held responsible - as happened with SWMNBN. Am I right so far?

So they are asking for views on different ways that sites like Mumsnet may be protected from this, and there are several different options.

That's as far as I've got ...

MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 18/03/2011 17:40

You all get gold stars for trying. I will try to post up a precis over the weekend

OP posts:
BecauseImWorthIt · 18/03/2011 17:15

I'm trying to read it, but finding it hard going Blush

Couldn't you tweet it? I'm much better with only 140 characters

LeninGrad · 18/03/2011 16:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 18/03/2011 16:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PaisleyLeaf · 18/03/2011 13:25

(x posted)

PaisleyLeaf · 18/03/2011 13:24

Paragraph 103 onwards (page 40) looks relevant.

MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 18/03/2011 13:22

Oh dear, sorry, I was talking rubbish! Blush Relevant (to internet hosts) parts are on pp44 onwards.

OP posts:
BecauseImWorthIt · 18/03/2011 12:31

Sorry, Rowan - I tried, but that's a pretty impenetrable document - and I couldn't find any paragraph numbering that relates to your post!

Can you be more specific about which pages we should look at - I'm really not going to be able to wade through all 132 pages!