Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
MNHQ

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

7 replies

RowanMumsnet · 17/03/2011 11:25

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

Go to post
MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 18/03/2011 13:22

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

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 18/03/2011 17:40

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

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 18/03/2011 18:24

All present and correct so far...

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 19/03/2011 11:04

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.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 22/03/2011 11:36

Hello,

Thanks for all these. At the moment I'm not sure that we 'think' anything in particular about this, which is why we wanted to ask you lot!

At the moment, our major concern is that the sheer cost of defending libel actions means that our standard response is to delete posts when we receive complaints, even if we think that the post is actually completely defensible. Obviously, we'd rather not do this; it's bad for the quality of discussion on the board, and it's bad for freedom of speech/expression.

We absolutely support the rights of individuals to protect their reputations, and we have no problem with removing posts that are plainly malicious or defamatory. The problems occur when we think posts are not malicious or defamatory, but we have to remove them anyway.

As an aside, one controversial question about this bill is around the rights of corporations (as opposed to individuals) to sue for defamation. Some of the reformers are campaigning for this right to be removed from corporations, although that's not in the bill at the moment.

The consultation document sets out a few possible ways forward WRT web hosts, and it's these we'd like to get your views on. I will outline these in my next post.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 22/03/2011 12:09

OK, so, the options presented in the consultation document (p43, para 114 onwards) are:

  1. remove liability from eg Mumsnet altogether. NortyPoster to be fully liable for anything she posts on the site; Mumsnet to have legal obligation to pass on to complainants NortyPoster's contact details (which would mean us having to collect much fuller registration details in the first place; not sure what could be done about existing posters, for whom we only have email addresses in the main). NortyPoster's post to remain visible on Mumsnet (unless we agree it's obviously defamatory) until the issue is resolved between the complainant (MrAngryEmail) and NortyPoster.

  2. Statutory process to be set up, in which eg Mumsnet acts as a contact and liaison point between NortyPoster and AngryEmail, and (I think, although document is not clear) attempts to broker a compromise. If no agreement is reached, AngryEmail could initiate legal proceedings against NortyPoster, but not against Mumsnet.

3)Introduce a new requirement for AngryEmail to obtain a court order before Mumsnet is required to remove any posts. Mumsnet remains liable (I think) for the posts, but at least the issue will have been before a judge and thus we would know that AngryEmail's case had some merit. (Depending on how you feel about judges.) I'm not sure, in this scenario, whether Mumsnet would remain open to a suit even after the post had been removed, or whether Mumsnet's compliance with a 'notice and remove' order would be, legally speaking, the end of the matter.

  1. Make a legal distinction between small/local forums (where NortyPoster would be directly liable for her posts) and bigger UGC sites/forums (where the company/host would be liable). Don't know whether Mumsnet would be considered to fall into the big or small category here, so...

That's how I see it, anyway.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 22/03/2011 12:11

Hmmm, I don't know SerialComma but I will see if I can find out for you. Possibly that the piecemeal nature of English defamation law (lots of statutes, common law, case law) means that years can be spent in pre-trial arguments, with all the attendant costs?

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

Back to thread