Websites 'should carry libel risk for anonymous posts' MNHQ - say the report is "chilling".

[Putrifyno]

Here

Well obviously this worries MNHQ, but I am not quite sure I understand how this would work. Are they saying that if we post something "contentious" we might have to waive our right to anonymity?

I'm not aware that there has been anyone successfully sued for defamation or libel etc after an anonymous comment on a website. Mostly it's all wind and piss, unlikely to be taken seriously. I know MNHQ are quick to pull threads if there's a head of steam attacking one individual... is that what they mean? And I suppose if you were found to be publishing libellous statements under your own name, say on Facebook, you should be told to take them down.

It actually sounds like a bit of an improvement...

The situation at the moment is that someone can complain about any post, anonymous or not, and they will probably get it removed. If the web site doesn't do that then they can be held accountable as the publisher of the comment and therefore get sued.

The proposed situation will be that if a post is not anonymous then upon receipt of a complaint the web site would publish details of the complaint alongside the post. The complainer would then have to go to court to get the post actually removed and the web site wouldn't be open to being sued.

If the post is anonymous then the poster could be agree to taking away that anonymity and the post will remain, or they could stay anonymous and the post will go as it does under the law at the moment.

So if you want to stay anonymous the situation stays pretty much as it is, but you do get the chance to go public and stand by your post, which is something you can't do right now.

So a current scenario is:

1. Someone posts something (anonymous or not).
2. Web site receives a complaint.
3. Web site must take the post down or they could be sued.

The scenario will be:

1. Someone posts something
2. Web site receives a complaint.

If Anonymous:
3) Poster offered chance to drop anonymity, if taken go to "Not Anonymous Step 3"), if not taken post is taken down or the site could be sued.

If not Anonymous:
3) Complaint published alongside post
4) Complainer can get court order to get post removed.
5) If court gives the order the site must comply or they could get sued.

"I'm not aware that there has been anyone successfully sued for defamation or libel etc after an anonymous comment on a website."

That's because the law right now is in such a way that web sites will pull pretty much any comment they get a complaint about, that's there only real option to avoid legal action.

"And I suppose if you were found to be publishing libellous statements under your own name, say on Facebook, you should be told to take them down."

That's certainly the situation now, Facebook would take them down or they could get sued as the publisher. The proposal seems to say that Facebook would no longer have to do that. If the post was not anonymous then all they need to do is to publish the complaint next to the post and they're safe from being sued.

Thank you for the explanation! So why do MNHQ not like it then?

"Thank you for the explanation! So why do MNHQ not like it then?"

I'm not too sure...

If someone wishes to remain anonymous, as many of us will, then nothing seems to really change, the post is either taken down or the web site can be sued for libel.

Maybe the BBC aren't explaining the new proposal quite right...

It sounds like it needs a lot more intervention than the current 'light touch' system in place. More staff to administer complaints?

"It sounds like it needs a lot more intervention than the current 'light touch' system in place. More staff to administer complaints?"

True.

It depends if it's optional or not.

If a web site has to allow anonymous posters to go public and has to publish complaints next to a post then you're going need additional support staff and there will be development costs to change the way the site works.

However if a web site can choose to do what it does now, that is to remove the comment as soon as a complaint comes in, then there's no need for any changes or any new staff.

So maybe the law is compulsory.

Or maybe MNHQ knows that it doesn't want to spend the money on staff and saying "we're trying to protect anonymous posters" sounds a lot better than "we're not willing to pay the money to protect people's comments and want to keep things as they are."

"MN's co-founder, Justine Roberts, said while it was right to stop people from "assassinating the character of others from behind the cloak of anonymity..""

From OP's link. CogitoErgo should know something about this seeing as she's wildly, inaccurately and potentially libellously accused another poster recently of being a certain nationality when she isn't, of not paying taxes in the UK when she does, of instigating revolts and random other wrong things based on nothing more than ideological antipathy towards said poster. CogitoErgo would be the first to fall foul of any new laws her coalition gov deciced to bring in in this regard.

I think I may support it.

"CogitoErgo would be the first to fall foul of any new laws her coalition gov deciced to bring in in this regard."

It sounds like CogitoErgo could be the first to benefit from the new laws, if this is true...

Under the current law if someone complains about one of Cogito's posts MNHQ have to remove it or face the consequences of a libel action.

Under the proposed law Cogito would have the option of dropping the anonymity and the "libellous" post would remain until a Court decided that it genuinely should be removed.

So the current system allows anyone to get a post removed if they sounded serious enough, the proposals would force them to go to court.

"I think I may support it."

So, presuming this is about you, you would have to drop your anonymity as you can't libel a faceless internet log on. Cogito could then drop their anonymity too. And you would then have to go to court and convince them it was slanderous.

Or under the current system if you sound scary enough to MNHQ the post will vanish.

Do you really support it?

I'm sure there has been a fairly recent case of someone being sued for anonymous comments made about someone else on a website. Can't remember the details, however.

Thing is, UK libel law is already the most restrictive and expensive in the world - people who have made perfectly correct and reasonable points have to retract because the cost of defending an action is ruinous, even if you are right.

It is Not Good that websites automatically take down a post the second a complaint is received, because that includes inaccurate, tendentious and mendacious complaints as well as those that might be justified. Adds up to a chilling effect on freedom of speech, something that is a very basic human right - important for the proper functioning of society as a whole as well as the invididual. (Remember the use of secret injunctions to preven us knowing about dangerous chemicals used in shipping, or the dumping of toxic waste in a developing country.)

Mind you, I think the proposals show a bunch of middle-aged MPs are rather out of touch with posters on websites. They appear not to understand why people choose usernames instead of real names, acting from the assumption that anonymity is somehow wrong and ill-intentioned.

"I'm sure there has been a fairly recent case of someone being sued for anonymous comments made about someone else on a website."

Quite probably, that's how the law is right now. If a site doesn't take down an anonymous request then it's seen as legally being the publisher and can therefore be sued for libel.

"It is Not Good that websites automatically take down a post the second a complaint is received, because that includes inaccurate, tendentious and mendacious complaints as well as those that might be justified. "

I agree , and in that way this new proposal does seem like an improvement, if it's voluntary and web sites can still work the way they do now if they want to.

At least under the proposal there is a way in which the posting can remain, albeit it no longer anonymously, with the complaint beside it and the complainer is forced into getting a court to order that the post be taken down.

I am loving the irony of this responder on the BBC site.
.
ExpatKS 20th October 2011 - 16:49

No-one should be allowed to post anonymously...

I doubt their real name is ExpatKS

True, bhmom, her real name is very unlikely to be ExpatKS, however, to be allowed to post, the BBC site terms say that personally identifying information cannot be used, so there can be no phone numbers, e-mail addresses or (even worse) postal addresses submitted, and the post would therefore be removed if it was not anonymous :)

I quite liked *> this comment

"if we have to use a retina scan before we can use our own home computer"

The proposals don't seem to say that anonymous comments have to be stopped, they don't even seem to say that the way they are handled should be changed. So that comment is taking it a bit too far.

However the comment in general does raise some very interesting questions about who "identified authors" are. It might be that even using an account, which usually requires an email address, is sufficient. In which case MNHQ are missing the point.

If an "identified author" needs anything else then we then enter that whole world that the commentator goes in to of who do you "know" that the identity is real?

Agreed, it was a bit too far (for effect) but the point is that if someone believes there is something false written /said (think YouTube for a second) about them online, and the originator of the comment is only 'known' by some name and an e-mail address (and perhaps an image in the case of YT), then does the court case go ahead without a defendant attending, and decide without any views from that defendant being explained to the court?

(Not sure if anything can be "served" on a person/ company via e-mail at this time.)

Badgers - no, it was the poster who was sued, not the website.

"then does the court case go ahead without a defendant attending, and decide without any views from that defendant being explained to the court?"

The initial court case against a web site that has a post that is not anonymous would probably be between the web site who published the comment and the person who's complaining about it. The court order to remove the comment would certainly be against that web site and not the poster.

So it "could" work.

"it was the poster who was sued, not the website."

Yes both would be liable, the publisher (the web site if, under the current law, they refuse to immediately remove the comment/post) and the person who actually made it.

Lawks. Only a matter of time before Peter Andre gets me and Getorf then...

Judges certainly are prepared to rush ahead and reach judgments without bothering to ask one of the parties involved for their side of the story - look at all the superinjunctions. Celebrities have been able to wail 'ooh, that tart was trying to blackmail me' and get a super-injunction without anyone actually testing whether that claim was a big steaming heap of shit. I cannot understand why judges have not pointed out that accusing someone of a serious criminal offence - blackmail - is not rather more damaging than accusing someone of shagging around.

Seems to have gone a bit quiet on the superinjunction front lately, but it's scary that judges have been so quick to reach conclusions without hearing from both parties.

Badgers - yes, I know roughly how defamation works because of my day job. Difference with the web and social media is that not all comments go through organisations or people who should have some working knowledge of the law - I hope I'd spot a potential libel at 20 paces (fingers crossed) but someone posting on a website in their spare time may well not. Or may vaguely hear about libel and then be reluctant to post their honest opinion, which is equally unfortunate if it's a. true or b. fair comment.

er, i know we're not supposed to talk about it, but wasn't the swmnbn thing this exact scenario? and the (anonymous) poster decided to go public (and wrote some articles about it) but mn paid the tab?

or have i got the wrong end of the stick entirely?

IIRC there was a LibDem MP accused of being a paedophile or something? And he sued the anonymous poster.

And then wasn't there that Facebook case, where some guy had stalked the parents of a dead child and set up a FB page to post nasty things about the child?

I think there's some merit in a law which defames people online - there's a page on FB atm where some bloke is slagging off his exgf for not letting him see his son - he's obviously a total abuser and he's being allowed to post a load of shit about her. I can't imagine why that should be legal tbh - we could all set up FB pages and slag off random people we don't like and tell really damaging lies about them and I'm not sure the law ought to allow us to do tht.

Blimey, I'd better watch out for a letter from Nicole she is 29 going on 42 Shitsinger's lawyer then....

There was the v entertaining slebs gossip/slander thread a few weeks' back on here - got pulled eventually, but only after revealing a lot of sleb goss that would surely have involved numerous libel injunctions if posted in an online 'newspaper' rather than 'chat' setting.

I was pretty about a lot of the stuff posted on there - it was all about named, well-known individuals and was both extremely damaging in most cases and extremely detailed; not just a kind of so-and-so is a wanker type comments; more a so-and-so was unfaithful to their wife whilst their wife was pregnant, with my best friend type thing. I suppose it must be difficult for mumsnet to police these; in that case, the thread lasted for days before being pulled.