to draw your attention to MN'ers being threatened with court for posting

[gordyslovesheep]

By Samaritan's Purse

I know I'm not the only one

who else have they decided to silence?

It's quite interesting that they dislike criticism so much

There is a lesson here of course that posting on any online social medium carries risks. MN is not different or 'safer' than any other online forum.
The publisher of any website can always be made to identify its users by a court.

If any of you are union members you may have legal protection depending on which union.
Some bank accounts and home insurance also include it.

If you are really concerned then give them a ring, they should be able to give advice while you wait for a response.

Thinking of you all.

Hello

Apologies - we like to keep all libel-related emails together and dealt with in the main by the full daytime team, which is why not everything has been being actioned immediately.

The Act requires a response from the poster within the specified timeframe, which is five full non-working days.

That said, we really don't want to cause further anxiety so we will check your reports now prism, and we're sorry for causing you alarm.

Tweeting
I suspect the position is as clear as mud because of clashing legal obligations. MNHQ will have to comply with the Data Protection legislation too. That may prevent them using information provided for one purpose for a totally different purpose.

I'm going with the presumption that it would be highly unlikely that it would be in Samaritan's Purse's best interests to sue me, as an individual, for critical comments about them.

They'd have to prove that I'd made defamatory comments about them, & I reckon I could defend anything I've written on grounds variously of 'truth' &/or 'honest opinion'.

I really don't think any of it would make them look big or clever.

So, not going to worry. Shame they seem to have stopped letting Brian post on here, though. That was genuinely funny last year.

Anyone who is concerned might like to read this, and particularly the very last bullet point at the bottom:

sites.google.com/site/occalert/Home/concerns

After seeing Brian in action last year, I decided never to support this organisation. What exactly is it that they're hoping to achieve here?

Anyone who reads this thread is going to have negative associations with SP/OCC. If SP/OCC/FG feel affronted, I believe Jesus preached one should turn the other cheek.

What's the legal situation with regard to posting links to reputable news outlets

If you repost defamatory information gleaned from other sources you can be sued. If you link to other sources the legal situation is less clear but it is unlikely you would be sued (unless, of course, you had set up the other source yourself).

I would love to see Mn take a proactive stance on this and stand up for MN users freedom to discuss the issues and evidence put out by Samaritan's Purse

The problem for Mumsnet is that once they receive a notice from an individual or organisation claiming that a post is defamatory they have follow the process laid down by the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013. The first thing they must do is send you notice of the complaint and give you the options of having your post deleted or providing your full name and address. If Mumsnet fail to follow the required process they can be sued for libel and I suspect their insurers would tell them that they were uninsured. So standing up for your freedom could mean no more Mumsnet. I suspect that isn't what you want.

Note that if you provide your full name and address, tell Mumsnet you don't want that information released to the complainant and say that you don't want your post removed Mumsnet can safely leave your post in place. However, it is then open to the complainant to get a court order to force Mumsnet to disclose your details so that the complainant can then take action against you.

surely a court order wouldn't be granted unless they could prove that what you had said was illegal

The complainant would not have to prove that your post was libellous to get a court order. They would simply have to convince the court that there was an arguable case and that they should be allowed to bring that case.

For those who say this is an attack on freedom, the central question is whether the internet should grant you the freedom to libel someone anonymously and not give them any comeback. Unfortunately a lot of internet forums including Mumsnet see a lot of posts that are potentially libellous. The poster isn't necessarily posting maliciously (although in some cases they clearly are) but that doesn't alter the fact that the post is libellous. Should we really not allow the person being libelled any comeback? A lot of the comment on this thread is fuelled by the fact that many people seem to disapprove of Samaritan's Purse. Would people feel differently if the person being libelled was someone they admired?

Fucking hell,

Thabk you for the links to their website, I wont be donating to them again

www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ebola-crisis-sheds-light-on-controversial-samaritans-purse/2014/08/20/0b9d670a-27b5-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

"During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, Franklin Graham drew a sharp rebuke from Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf after the group tried to arrange for U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to distribute thousands of Arabic-language Bibles — an undertaking that violated an agreement between the Saudi and American governments to avoid proselytizing."

TweetingFury what # are you using?

PRH
I don't mean that MNHQ should ignore their legal obligations but they have more power than individual posters with regard to getting publicity, and campaigning about this. Regardless of the legal situation, most companies will be aware of the danger to their reputation, should they be seen to be on the wrong side of this issue

Tunip I'll happily join you in an anti QE post. Ohh the stories I could tell.

You would have thought after McLibel big organisations would think carefully about this approach. It was a textbook Pyrrhic victory.

What's QE?

If you have provided mnhq with addresses etc for any other reason afaik it cannot be held and used for any other reason under the DPA. in fact it shouldn't even be held after it has been ised. ie if you have submitted your address for a competition prize, once that's done they cannot retain that it

Happy to be corrected though

ffs. copy and paste phone fail. you get the drift

I'd await legal confirmation on that.

Court orders and warrants often trump the DPA (otherwise the police couldn't get your mobile phone data when you've gone missing, for example).

Thank you, MaryZ.

I remember the threats from the school Mintyy references. Put me right off the school.

a. The exact legal situation re libel laws and posting on MN

If someone or some organisation thinks you have libelled them in a post on Mumsnet they can take action against you personally. They cannot take action against Mumsnet unless they have complained formally to MNHQ and MNHQ has failed to follow the process in the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulation. If MNHQ cannot contact you they must take the post down to be safe. If they can contact you the post can remain in place if you request it provided you give MNHQ your name and address.

b. If MNHQ are legally obliged to hand over poster's details, should they already have them on file

MNHQ is not obliged to hand over poster's details unless the complainant gets a court order forcing them to do so.

c. How MNHQ plan to support users - a PR and Social Media emergency plan would be handy

I'm not sure what you are expecting here. I don't think there is much MNHQ could do in any individual case without risking making themselves liable for libel.

&d. If MNHQ plan to campaign more on this issue

Personally I hope they don't. I think the current law has the balance about right. MNHQ can't be sued for libellous posts provided they follow the correct process when they receive a complaint. You can insist your posts remain in place provided you give MNHQ your name and address - prior to the new law MNHQ's only protection was to remove every post that was the subject of a complaint. And if the person complaining feels strongly enough they can force MNHQ to give them the information they need to take action against the person who made the potentially libellous post. You may not like the last point but the alternative is for the internet to be a free for all where anyone could post appalling libels about you and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.