Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

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

1 reply

Putrifyno · 21/10/2011 09:56

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?

JustineMumsnet · 07/11/2011 14:00

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.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread