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 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."

But the proposal doesn't seem to make things any worse than they are right now.

If you post an anonymous comment at the moment you can be held liable and the web site will be too unless it takes it down right away.

And the proposal doesn't seem to change that at all.

The only change is that if you decide to publish something with your name then the web site doesn't have to take it down right away to avoid the threat of libel, it only needs to publish the complaint and then wait for a court order.

Damn.

I wish I'd seen that sleb thread.

[hgrin]

I saved it.

It was very but most entertaining. Let's say I will never look at Jimmy Saville in quite the same light (or preferably any light) again

LOL LOL, send us all a copy! [hgrin]

I think this is actually something that could protect MN. As it stands, if I posted something saying something like: "I've heard Mr Nonny Mouse is a lying thieving cheat who kicks kittens for fun" then Mr Nonny Mouse can sue both me (assuming he can identify me) and MN for libel as publisher.

And not just that, as the law stands, if Mr Nonny Mouse's cousins in France, the US and Germany also read this post, that's another three seperate libel actions - one for each country.

So one action could pretty much bring a website down financially.

I do think people should be more responsible for what they post - Twitter is a good example - that place is like a defamation wild west. I don't see how this will stop people posting sensitive real-life things, it just means they will have to post the truth, or be prepared to legally defend what they have written.

People shouldn't be posting libellous posts anyway. It's so easy to say anything you like under a pseudonym - true or made up - but it's not always the right thing to do.

"As it stands, if I posted something saying something like: "I've heard Mr Nonny Mouse is a lying thieving cheat who kicks kittens for fun" then Mr Nonny Mouse can sue both me (assuming he can identify me) and MN for libel as publisher."

Not quite, at least not under UK law.

Mr Nonny Mouse could contact MNHQ and demand that the message is taken down, MNHQ will only be held liable as the publisher if they refuse to do so. If they take the message down then they're not liable and can't be sued.

But I thought that a libel is considered published once one person has seen it?

"But I thought that a libel is considered published once one person has seen it?"

Possibly, but due to the nature of web sites they are only considered the publisher if they refuse to take the posting down. If you get a complaint and take the offending post down you're in the clear.

The problem being it means posts are taken down without good reason - perfectly fair and accurate comments are taken down just because someone complains, whether that person is reasonable or not or has a point or not.

I'm not sure about the focus on anonymity though - this report looks as if it's written by people who just don't get why people have usernames. Seems to be an assumption that anonymity = troublemaker, which is not the case at all.

Sorry for the delay in commenting on this. We think there's lots of good stuff in the committee's suggestions - much of which we've been pushing for for some time (see Mumsnet call's for change in libel law here ). We do, however, have some concerns around the presumption against anonymity.

The two core recommendations include a new "notice and take-down procedure", and "measures to encourage a change in culture in the way we view anonymous material that is user-generated, including via social media".

We think publishing complaints and obliging complainants to get a take down order are sensible suggestions but we are concerned about the suggestion that unless a user forgoes anonymity, a website will have to remove posts after just one complaint.

This is what the draft committee has said "We recommend that any material written by an unidentified person should be taken down by the host or service provider upon receipt of complaint, unless the author promptly responds positively to a request to identify themselves, in which case a notice of complaint should be attached."

Mumsnet users, as you know, can build up extensive personal records of their lives and feelings under the cloak of anonymity. Many, we suspect, would not opt to out themselves, even if they were happy to defend a supposedly defamatory statement. As a result if would be very easy to get posts you didn't like (were you an individual or a company) simply by complaining about them.

In it's presumption against anonymity and it's understandable wish to stop people taking advantage of anonymity to make unwarranted attacks, the committee has failed acknowledged that such anonymity can be useful by allowing individuals to seek and give extraordinary help that they otherwise might not be able to.

So we will be seeking clarity on this issue and lobbying for a solution whereby individuals, in the event of a complaint, would to be obliged to supply real-life details only to the site host or the complainant rather than to post them on the internet for all to see.

Please do let us know if you have any further thoughts.