The government has published a draft libel reform bill; we'd like to know what you think

[RowanMumsnet]

As lots of you will know, MNHQ is a part of the Libel Reform Coalition, which has been campaigning for major changes in the libel laws in England and Wales. This week the government published its draft defamation bill, which is intended to address some of the major criticisms of the way libel currently works; more background here. The government is now seeking people's views on whether it is on the right track; the consultation period will end in June.

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that the treatment of web hosts - like MNHQ - in the draft bill is very underdeveloped. We will be feeding back our thoughts on possible ways forward to the consultation body, and as ever we'd be interested to hear what you think. (If you look at paragraphs 140 onwards in the consultation document, you'll see some of the specific proposals that are being considered; you can also read the Libel Reform Coalition's response to the bill.)

Thanks,

MNHQ x

Sorry, Rowan - I tried, but that's a pretty impenetrable document - and I couldn't find any paragraph numbering that relates to your post!

Can you be more specific about which pages we should look at - I'm really not going to be able to wade through all 132 pages!

Oh dear, sorry, I was talking rubbish! Relevant (to internet hosts) parts are on pp44 onwards.

Paragraph 103 onwards (page 40) looks relevant.

(x posted)

I'm trying to read it, but finding it hard going

Couldn't you tweet it? I'm much better with only 140 characters

You all get gold stars for trying. I will try to post up a precis over the weekend

OK. So they are consulting on the issue of what happens when something that might be considered defamatory is posted.

Definition of defamatory:

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person

( From this online dictionary

And the issue is that current libel laws mean that the site on which this has been posted is held responsible - as happened with SWMNBN. Am I right so far?

So they are asking for views on different ways that sites like Mumsnet may be protected from this, and there are several different options.

That's as far as I've got ...

All present and correct so far...

And that was the easy bit!

I'd love to read this over the weekend and will give you my views then, I have to dash now- I'd like to see if there's any provision for parody

Ooh vinestein, I'd love to see the parody thing in there (is a hobbyhorse of mine) but I don't think it is. Some of the reformers reckon it's covered by the 'honest opinion'/context stuff, but I don't think it is - or not completely, anyway.

Lenin - the problem is that you might say something libellous about me -"that BIWI has a huge, spotty arse and eats babies for breakfast", for example - and I can get very upset because that is defamation of my character. Because of course I'm not that fat.

But rather than sue you, I would sue Mumsnet - they (as far as I understand it in the current set up) would be liable for your comments.

The reality of course, is that a discussion forum owner can't/shouldn't be held responsible for the things that have been said by individuals posting on there.

The whole SWMNBN debacle was a good example of this.

Even if MN (or other sites) had official moderators, there are so many threads, posts and posters that it would be impossible to monitor the site effectively. And it would be a massive financial drain - possibly making a site like this commercially unviable.

The consultation, as far as I understand it, is to decide what the possible alternatives are - i.e. there has been a recognition that this needs reform.

(I hope that this is correct, but this is my understanding of it).

Will try and read the rest of it later ...

I don't know what SWMNBN means?

Will read the consultation document, but are we saying that freedom is speech doesn't need any limitations? For instance race hatred could be viewed as a limitation of freedom of speech there should be some boundaries in terms of what is acceptable in a civilized society. Clearly this is a criminal issue, but the same sort of principle in terms of the quality aspect for the civil strand.

(She Who Must Not Be Named)

ilovemydog - no, they aren't abolishing libel entirely. Can't tell you what they are saying, though, as it's so impenetrable - we need a translation by MN!

SWMN etc. is a well-known parenting expert who sued MN when posters argued that her books were not necessarily their favourites (and made disparaging remarks about her but you know, if you are a public figure and all that...).

(Should have put 'expert' in inverted comments, btw.)

[unhelpful]

I want to read this when I get online. I'm not surprised MumsNet are involved after that crazy incident and hopefully this could protect others in the same situation.

I think the disconnect and problem I am having understanding this is that sites, such as MN, do state that what is posted on them does belong to them, for outside publication etc.

So how can they then turn around and say 'but we're not responsible for what someone says on our boards.'

I'm not saying the whole SWMNBN fiasco was right or fair, but I am just trying to understand how MN (and others) can say they own my words but not the responsibility if someone sues for what is said.

I did try to read it but my eyes crossed (why can't they write these things in English???). So does it say that if I, for example, call a parenting 'expert' a big fat moron on here, then I can be sued? Rather than MN? Or is it saying that no one can be sued as it is my opinion that they are a big fat moron?

I always took that to mean MumsNet or whoever's site you post on, can publish your words without your permission as you're giving permission by posting.

The problem has been the recent case law following SWMNBN debacle which has rendered websites a mystery as far as this goes and it seems it is still quite mysterious even after this paper.

Defamation is, I think the publishing of a defamatory statement which refers to the claimant and has no lawful justification- it has to be proven that it is published, that it is defamatory (this one is bizarre, almost anything can be construed as defamatory) and that it refers to the person who is claiming- again, this is a bit of an odd one as you can infer this, still be liable if it's about someone else, and can also affect whole groups of people
. The law as it currently is is in two forms really, libel, which is where it is in permanent form ie written, published, even a film- and slander which is transiroty in form- there's also a whole heap of new cases on European law creating what has almost become a 'privacy' law in the UK.

Defences have always been justification, fair comment, absolute and qualified privelege, that it was unintentional, innocent dissemination eg where someone prints a defamatory remark repeatedly without realising, and volenti or consent, so where someone invites it basically. There has never been a provision for humour- which is where the law is ridiculous at present.

Re: web hosts, the recent cases have been really peculiar imo. Ordinarily the party that publishes the remark is deemed liable- if this could be an internet site then the site is liable (though this is arguably historically not really so if they have removed the remark as soon as they are aware of it). The SWMNBN case is obviously a case where MN were held liable for a remark on their website.
However there have been a few cases including a svcary one in the High Court, Sheffield Wednesday v Hargreaves, in which the website.chat forum was ORDERED to provide the identities of the users (ie, you, you, you, me, AnyFucker, Cod, and so on) who could then themselves be sued by the claimant. This is not only scary for you and me but it provides problems for MN as well- how do they know who you are? How do they know something is defamatory? blablabla

Basically the real need for reform is, well, all of the law, but in particular the defences of fair comment- and also there really has to be an addition for a comedy defence, many things are said for the humour and are clearly not meant as defamatory statements of fact (eg SWMNBN)

er and last comment before I contribute something useful- the scary introduction of 'privacy' laws via Europe (remember michael douglas suing 'Hello!'?) completely infringes freedom of speech.