Hi wabbit,
You asked for my own thoughts on what should or could change for the better re the libel law.
While trying not to repeat too much of what has already been said ....
At the moment I believe it's only "best practice" and not actually legally sound, that a Web site takes down a post when they are notified. (just allowing the post if it is libelous is breaking the law!)
So firstly, I think it should be written into the law that a Web site owner (+/or ISP ?) has the protection of innocent dissemination if their site has content from external writers, up until the point they are notified that it may contain illegal content (which could be libel, state secrets, doctor patient records etc.).
I think all sites that allow users / the public to add content should have an easy and obvious system in place so that site visitors can report offensive posts to the Web site owners / management.
The site owners / management should then use their "reasonable endeavours" (see the post by prettybird on Wed 23-May-07 14:04:49) to remove or edit the post ASAP.
- to protect themselves it would also be prudent that they keep their own records of when they got the message and what they did. In case they find themselves needing to explain the time frame etc.
Well those are the bits I think should take priority.
Once the above key points are established, I think it'd be great if their was an established system (a few have been discussed in this thread) where the poster can have the liability for the comment transfered to themselves and away from the Web site.
- I see this as secondary to the above items, as there are already options to Web site owners that although not perfect (and ideal for all business models) do give the site owners identifialble site user. (ie back to my whole FakeID profile point).
I don't think it should be part of the law, but I do think sites could help themselves by allowing posters to add comments to their historical comments (and not just later in the thread).
I think the "pub convesation" contect argument is irrelvant and a diversion from the real issues. Each post has to be judged on it's own. Others and I have given our reasons below (Justine has not replied to these).
I see it as fundamental that any libel situation should require the person(s) making the apparently libelous statement should defend themselves by providing the defence. For example the defence of truth (ie factually back up their statements) and not the "victim" needing to blind defend themselves without knowing what (if any) evidence exists against them.
- I also think that if a person sues for libel and looses, their should be a MASSIVE penatly to discourage a wealthy person taking the legal route because they think they'll win by having more money.
Key is to leave individuals with protection from libel.
FakeID