Poor old eyes. I do hope he's allowed back.
FWIW i know a fair bit about copyright, defamation and libel through my profession. If we want to keep these very valuable threads going (and we do, don't we?) it's worth us remembering the following:
If you use someone else's picture without their permission you are breaching their copyright (that includes FB profile pictures) The person who took the picture retains the copyright, no matter how many times it is reproduced without permission.
In order for someone to have been defamed, the following three criteria must be fulfilled:
-
A statement must have been made that lowers them in the estimation of right thinking people
-
that statement must be reasonably believed to have been attributed to the person who has been defamed (you don't have to name them. If you say, for example, I think that the famous footballer with four children who played for Manchester United has robbed a bank, you are defaming DB, even if you don't name him)
-
that the statement must be published to a third party.
If those criteria are fulfilled, that person can sue you for libel. There are, of course, defences for libel. The main one is justification (what was said was true) but it would be up to you to go to court and prove, on the balance of probability, using hard evidence, that what was said was true.
The person who has been defamed could sue you personally, MN the website, and Justine mumsnet.
We might not like libel law, and we might not think it's fair, but it is the law, and it can get hideously expensive to defend a libel case, even if the payout at the end is small.
The screenshot posted above about public figures being exempt is American, and doesn't apply in this country.
I hope these threads continue. I think they're the greatest threat to MLMs this country has seen in a long time, and I think the MLMs know that, hence the threat. I've said this before, but I think MN are being massively brave for letting them stand. They are under no obligation to do so.