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

Original poster

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

114 replies

BIWI · 29/01/2017 08:46

Without going into specific details, obviously, there's clearly a huge issue here about libel/responsibility for our posts.

I wonder if it would be a good idea for MNHQ to reiterate the current situation, so that people appreciate what they shouldn't (and what they can) post?

OP posts:
EdithWeston · 29/01/2017 09:23

I'm not sure why this is news.

MN has been here before - it's totally normal that when someone thinks posts are libellous their representatives contact the site and then either the site provides details of the posters or the comments are deleted.

@TalkinPeace is a poster who knows about this (as it happened to us and others about 3 years ago)

Powergower · 29/01/2017 09:21

Blimey. I do think mumsnet should have clear guidelines relating to what kind of posts could get you outed. It's a grey area and most posters won't know when they've crossed the line into libel.

TatianaLarina · 29/01/2017 09:21

The little shit. So you're not allowed to say you're not happy with your surgery?

ActuallyThatsSUPREMECommander · 29/01/2017 09:17

This is the start of the story
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/surgeon-unmasks-critics-on-mumsnet-k7ch3jhwn
Libel is still libel even when you use a false name.

DonkeyOaty · 29/01/2017 09:12

Ah yea BIWI I see your point. I am not familiar with the thread in question so don't know what was posted. Treading carefully here ofc.

TreadSoftlyOnMyDreams · 29/01/2017 08:58

If someone commits a criminal offence I have no issue with Mumsnet complying with the law and providing the police with their names.

Any more than Twitter have where people have had death threats for challenging Brexit in the courts, having the temerity to prosecute a footballer for rape etc etc.

GinIsIn · 29/01/2017 08:56

Ok, I found the article you meant - it does seem like they committed libel, in which case of course MN should divulge their details.

GinIsIn · 29/01/2017 08:54

This really doesn't make much sense without info. If they were posting on a criminal matter or libellously then of course MN should reveal their details. If they were discussing cake recipes and the journalist just wanted to know, then no they shouldn't reveal their details. It's entirely about context, isn't it?

CouchSwede · 29/01/2017 08:52

We're cross-posting like mad here Grin

CouchSwede · 29/01/2017 08:51

It's not behind a paywall. But you obviously don't realise that your initial post gave no info whatsoever!

Original poster
BIWI · 29/01/2017 08:51

Well hopefully my last post explains things a bit more!

OP posts:
CouchSwede · 29/01/2017 08:50

Ah I've found it. I think a brief summary of the issue would make your post a lot clearer.

Original poster
BIWI · 29/01/2017 08:50

It's on the Sunday Times/Times website, so behind a paywall.

And I don't want to go into the details of the story because that's not the point. The point is that Mumsnet has been taken to court and made to reveal the identity of two posters, because of how they posted on a particular issue.

It doesn't actually matter what the issue is (hence not linking to the story), it's the principle and the legal aspect of how and what we post (and what we shouldn't) that's important.

OP posts:
CouchSwede · 29/01/2017 08:48

Sorry I'm confused. Do you have a link? Why 'obviously' not give details Confused