To think most of Mumsnet do not understand libel?

[antelopevalley]

It is really common on here now to see an accusation that what an MNer said is libellous. It rarely is.
Libel is not a criminal offence, it is a civil wrong. Someone has to take you to court.

Libel refers to damaging someone's reputation and character and is based on stating as fact, things that are untrue.
So if I said someone famous who is known to be in a happy marriage was having an affair with someone else, and that was false and I said it maliciously, it would probably be potentially libellous i.e. that famous person could take me to court. Although unless you have an online following, that is very unlikely to happen.

But if I said the famous person was sleazy and I would not trust them, they seem the kind to pretend to have a happy marriage in public while having multiple affairs, that is unlikely to be libellous. It is my opinion and is not presented as a fact. It is the second kind of statement that some MNers keep saying is libellous.

You can say legally that you consider a named politician or famous person to be untrustworthy, sleazy, a bit thick, etc. It is opinion.

So please stop telling people that what they have said is libellous. The only potentially libellous comments I have ever seen on MN (rare) are deleted when reported. The matter is just an opinion that you may or may not agree with.

No that was not the case here.

I expect that Mumsnet relies (as many social media sites would) on s5 Defamation Act 2013, which limits the exent to which it can be sued provided it complies with certain processes.

Also you can be sued successfully for expressing an opinion. An opinion operates as a defence only when the requirements of s3 Defamation Act 2013 are met. The line between opinion and fact is not always an easy one.

Malice as a concept only has a limited role im English libel law for certain defences.

Yes, and Banks v Cadwalladr came down to public interest in the end, which Banks clearly hadn't factored in heavily enough.

Ah! Is that what happened there? I knew the result but not why.

Most school kids are aware? But you felt the need to point it out to a group of adults.

Sort of proving my point.

I know there are posters here - presumably adult - who use “chest of draws” or who will be unfamiliar with many idioms etc. The likelihood of those posters being able to differentiate between slander and libel is very low.

Therefore, if kids at secondary school are generally au fait with the terms, maybe it’s time adults on fora got to grips with basic language knowledge.🙄

Proving your point? 😆

Yes. The point that that distinction is largely irrelevant to this discussion - since the lack of understanding of defamation goes far beyond the largely trivial differences between slander and libel.

Many years ago I was a member of the jury on a high profile libel case. During his summing up the judge instructed us that libel was the deliberate act of lying about someone (in print) with the intention to make others think the worst of that person. I accept that the law may have changed since then, but at that time the intention to damage a person's reputation was very much a consideration.

Op what were your thoughts on the Collen Rooney vs Rebecca thingy trial

Was that libel?