Sunday Times story today about Mumsnet having to reveal posters' names

Because that works so well for Private Eye
(actually Private Eye don't use it - it's a HIGNFY joke and obviously they'll only let stuff go out on air after it's been lawyered to within an inch of its life).

It's possible to sign up here with false details using a yahoo email also with false details. Though I'm sure you could still be tracked via IP address if it's serious?

Not if you use a vpn or similar. It's not hard to be untraceable at all.

We could take a leaf out of Ian Hislop's book and nimbly dodge libel/slander issues by the judicious use of the word "allegedly" .

Soooo easy to forget you're not just chatting with your mates.

I read an account written by the MNer who got caught up in the SWMNBN debacle, and it was really scary - photographers at her door, legal letters by the ton. And the dawning realisation that what she thought was a silly, jokey comment to online friends was landing her in serious hot water.

It's not actually necessary to delete whole threads, just the specific posts that were objected to (assuming poster has not provided details and said 'see you in court')

The usernames given in The Times aren't ones I 'know' IYSWIM, and if there are no results returned at all then either they NCed to post on that thread only, or they joined just to post on that subject (wonder if there have been comments about the doctor on other sites too?), or they have had their entire posting history removed (something I might want, if my username was about to be published in this sort of context, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the potential libel).

Private messages on mn are between sender and recipient only not visible to other posters,
but mn can still be compelled to release,So,it's private only in that it's not visible to other mn posters
Mn is a public forum,it gets read by many,and widely reproduced e.g. DM,twitter

Small technical point. Truth is not a total defense against libel. It is undermined if the agreeved party can prove malice (which is hard). But I would have thought this would be covered by the defense of 'fair comment on a matter of public interest'.

I searched Blackfairy7 and Skohl but it brought up no posts at all, not even threads where posts have been deleted.

The whole thread was probably deleted.

We have been here before,legal action after mn posts
John Hemming MP, and the mn poster. The mn user personal details and job were disclosed by mr hemming

Gina Ford Author

Libel started as 'written word' but it actually means a defamatory statement in permanent form, so posted online, spoken out loud on a radio or TV programme because they're recorded, or (I'm guessing) a statement written in chalk on the pavement that dissolved away in the rain five minutes after it was written, IF somebody photographed it first and put it on Twitter.

Slander is a defamatory statement that was made orally and which only survives in the memory of those who heard it.

Lawyers, is that right?

Daily Mail has just recycled the story www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168630/Mumsnet-ordered-hand-identities-users.html

I'm pretty sure in the first instance they would have got a standard email from MNHQ, explaining that there was an accusation of libel, and offering them the chance to have their comment deleted.

That's what happened to me, when I said some company or other looked like it sold pound shop tat

Also, libel is defamation in the spoken word. Defamation is the written word. I believe.

Defamation is the act (for example trashing someone's reputation)
Libel is the written word.
Slander is the spoken word.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened more often to be honest, some of the sleb threads or things in the news are
If anyone points out to be careful you get back sarky "yes mum" type comments and they carry on.

Libel, slander, defamation....

I shall just stick to 'If you cannot say anything nice, don't say anything at all'.

will I, hell!!

libel is written....like a label!

almost the same, label...libel, libel...label

No that's libel and slander. Slander is spoken libel written.

Defamation and libel are slightly different.

Other way round. Libel is permanent defamation, slander is non-permanent. So a TV programme or film, letter, journalism or internet post would be libel.

A megaphone at speakers corner would be slander.

In fairness the surgeon has the right to recourse if he feels his professional name has been besmirched
Mn is a open forum and the comments are widely read and replicated in other media
I do think mn posters have an informality in tone/content as if talking to friends when in fact posts are open,visible and there are repercussions

Previously, mn posters were identified after dispute with john hemming mp

As an aside many professions have guidelines about social media
BMA social media guidelines

Finally, Tatiana you might want to get your comment deleted it's uncalled for

I searched Blackfairy7 and Skohl but it brought up no posts at all, not even threads where posts have been deleted.

Also, libel is defamation in the spoken word.

Defamation is the written word.

I believe.

You can say you don't like something as long as it's clear that it is a personal opinion too, and not presented as a fact.

There are loads of things that you can be prosecuted for posting them online, user: hate speech, inciting violence on top of the whole libel/defamation thing.
Inform yourself.

MN is a public forum, what we write is owned by MNHQ, not by us.
Be aware.

I don't think you should be allowed to be taken to court for anything written online.

Of course you should if it is genuinely libellous or bullying, or ruins the reputation of someone just out of spite (e.g. someone who has ended a relationship having their ex-partner claim they are riddled with herpes or something!)

The huge problem with the internet is that it gives anonymity - some sites have the most vile and disgusting comments on them - remarks that I'm sure the poster would not DARE make face-to-face. It is a coward's way of "criticism" (and a lot of it is personal, and nothing to do with service provided etc). Are you really saying that these people should not be called to task when this is appropriate and possible?

It's really not that difficult to engage your brain before you post. "Mr X has always come across to me as a bit arrogant and rude" is a totally different statement to "Mr X is incompetent, rude and stole his granny's life savings".