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

SWMNBN debacle?

It's (often) pretty clear whether it's defamatory, and then it's up to the court to decide if it's fair comment or not.

The poster needs to choose at the very outset if they are going to defend their words in court, and giving them the opportunity to identify themselves and do that is a normal thing (happened on a thread just the other week, and I remember posting on the Site Issues thread about that one too).

If they are not willing to do that, then the comment has to be deleted.

The only unusual thing about this incident is The Times reporting on it.

Yes, MNHQ can and do track people down via IP addresses.

I do think some people don't see that this isn't their private chat room

Like the spalding murders. Despite a rule saying you cannot name them, people were still dropping names and speculating. I even had PM's asking me to name them which obviously I can't do. The law says I can't. Don't get me wrong, it's out there on the Internet who they are and why they did it but it doesn't mean you can talk about it freely

Oblomov, an opinion is not expressing something as fact.
"I hated that restaurant" - fine
"My plate was dirty" - fine (not fine if you are out dining, but fine to put on TripAdvisor)
"The restaurant owner does not give a shit about his customers and will kill us all with his gawdawful food" - not fine.

After Jeff, I resigned up with a completely seperate email address and fake name. It would all have to come from ip address (unless they try and track down Ella BigBoobs from the electoral role )

I really think there is no point in speculating about that particular case here because too much depends on exactly what was said and how, but yes, a timely reminder that what we write here is visible for ever and just because we use NNs does not mean that we are not accountable for what we are saying.
Libel and defamation are to be avoided

"I hate the result of my cosmetic surgery and worry that it was not carried out correctly" is a perfectly valid statement to make, "I think my cosmetic surgery Mr Cutalot is an incompetent twat who ought to have his licence removed" not so much...

I can't see how any of this is doing Dr Sorens**n any favours.
Presumably this thread too will get deleted?

Maybe newish posters aren't aware of the law. Anyone who's been around a while will know there was a massive issue over She Who Must Not Be Named - this is not a new thing!

I find this all fascinating, but scarey.
Libel and defamation of character are 2 different things.

I wonder what they said?
If you go to a restaurant and then review it on trip advisor, you are giving your opinion.

If you did have surgery by him, or anyone else, and wrote about it here on MN, where does the libel 'grey area/ lines' start and finish?

And if you still maintained what you had written was true, or valid, or your opinion, when you are approached by MN offering you the chance to have it deleted, you might think: it is probably best, or another part you might think: no! do you know what I don't want to, I still standby what I wrote.

very tricky situation.

It isn't the same thing at all, no, but it's amazing the number of people who totally ignore all the official channels for dealing with a problem. Of course sometimes people take to social media after trying and failing to get something dealt with the official way, but there are angry people who just want to shout and vent and do maximum damage who've never even tried to make a formal complaint.

I saw this years ago when I was a school governor and a parent with a valid complaint about the head (which I would have supported) ignored the official procedures and went straight off to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman, the council's auditor, our MP, the elected Mayor and Uncle Tom Cobley and all (none of whom could or would do anything about his complaint). Eventually he lost interest and moved on to something else. The LEA was therefore never forced to deal properly with the initial issue and there was a lot of damage to the trust of parents in the school. Not a good outcome for anybody.

Isn't it misleading to talk about revealing the "names"? It makes more sense if MN reveals the IP address, and whatever information they have to id the posters. A genuine person might enter her real name and ID details, trolls will just sign as Donald Trump or Monkey Business.

Of course, the law still applies to online posts. I have seen a few instance of people being prosecuted for their tweets. Whilst I did not agree with their posts in the slightest, I found it frightening that in these instance freedom of speech no longer applied. They were not targeting a specific person or encouraging terrorism either.

Some posters might not realise at all that it's not just about libel, some opinion are simply not allowed, and they are not as anonymous as they believe, unless they go to a public internet.

Didn't similar happen with a Yorkshire private school? Don't think they took it to court but there were rumblings on here. Mind you, in my personal opinion it only make them look worse...

Agree Gasp0de it hasn't changed, and holding the poster to account, or the publisher if the comment remains without the poster stepping up and owning it, is normal practice.

People forget, I think, that MN is a publication (not a chat to your mates).

(And TreadSoftly at this stage, no-one knows whether a crime was committed, we simply know that an accusation has been made and ordinary first steps of the legal route taken).

As far as I can tell (given I can only see the start of the article) the guy hasn't actually successfully sued for libel yet so we don't actually know that he had been libelled. He's just managed to make MN give the names so he can sue.

So we don't know he's be libelled at all, just that he believes he has. It's not the same thing.

I wonder what they said.... surely if you're unhappy with your surgery you should be able to complain about it

You can see a small number of articles on The Times and The Sunday Times websites for nothing if you sign up to their emails. Here's the link for anyone who can follow it: www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/surgeon-unmasks-critics-on-mumsnet-k7ch3jhwn

For those who can't, the courts have ordered Mumsnet to co-operate with a cosmetic surgeon who believes he has been defamed on this site.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the laws on defamation have changed. What has changed is that it is now much easier to criticise someone and reach a huge audience in seconds, and once it's on the web it's there forever.

The defence to defamation is and always has been that what you said was true. It's not illegal to say something about another person that damages their reputation if it is true. (Proving that is of course not always easy.)

So when posting on Mumsnet or anywhere else, all you have to do is make sure you only post stuff that you know 100% is true or that is fair comment. I can say that Trump is a sex pest because he's admitted as much on the record. It's defamatory but it's true. If I said the same thing about someone else where there was no evidence, I just had a funny feeling about them, that would be defamatory and probably not true, so I could be taken to the cleaners.

"I thought MN had made it clear that,if approached by an aggrieved third party, they would give the poster the option to have the post removed or they would have to divulge any personal identifying information held on that poster."

Yes, I think this is the normal practice too.

MN can't 'out' you if they don't know who you are.

And any post about which someone starts down the legal libel route will include a request for the posters details. When you are publishing globally, which is what you do every time you post, it is up to the poster to defend it (in court if necessary) or the comments to be removed.

What I can't understand is why The a Times have published it. It seems unfortunate for the person concerned as - in the short term at least - it has drawn considerably more attention (their readership and this thread), though in the longer run it must have some other importance.

I thought MN had made it clear that,if approached by an aggrieved third party, they would give the poster the option to have the post removed or they would have to divulge any personal identifying information held on that poster.

Did they say they were unhappy with their surgery which I'd have thought is OK. Or did they say he was a maverick cowboy which isn't? Big difference.

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?

Surely people understand they are responsible for the comments they make? If people have made libellous comments on a public forum then they can't expect to hide behind anonymous usernames.