Update on the Gina Ford legal situation

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello all,
Some of you may have seen a Gina Ford interview in the Mail on Sunday today, in which she refers to the Mumsnet legal situation, so we thought it was only right to update you as to where we are.

We are due to go to mediation on March 7th. Our position with regard to this hasn't changed - since very early on in the dispute we have suggested mediation as a sensible way forward and so we are pleased to be meeting with Ms Ford and her lawyers on March 7th.

In the meantime GF has issued a claim form, which means that the court clock is now running and we have to put in our defence within 28 days.

Obviously, as Ms Ford has made clear by this action and by her statements in the Mail on Sunday if mediation fails, she intends to sue.

We're sorry that we are still having to ask you not to discuss Gina Ford or her methods but given the potential for something that may be used against Mumsnet to slip through, this probably remains the safest course of action.

We will, of course, keep you fully updated.

Thanks for all your support.
Mumsnet HQ

It can't until after it's posted. It's like making paper available for people to write on and saying write what you like and then if someone writes something illegal you whip it down right away. I don't think it should be regarded as publication but I don't know enough about libel law to know the answer. I just thought regulations which said those hosting bulletin boards and don't check before posting are not liable as long as when they know something is dubious they take it down right away might be relevant.

Am so and about this.
Good luck MNHQ!

I think that until it goes to court there is no definitvie uk ruling for a public forum rather than an eg yahoo group which is private

Well nobody should ever want to be a test case so in that case it's going to be better to write her a cheque, much cheaper if it can be negotiated well enough. I'm not sure even if my point about those ecommerce regulations is wrong, there was libel at all, though. Anyway it vindicates my daughter's career choice. We know who will most benefit from all this.

As far as I know, and I was a scummy journo in a previous life , libel is anything which can be said to have been published in a permanent form to a third party which damages the reputation or trade of the person it's written about, causes them hurt or upset or something else which I cant quite remember...
So techinically speaking, if you wrote something libellous, even for example on a postcard which was only read by the postman as well as the person it was intended for, it would be classed as libel rather than slander which is libel but in a transient form, ie, spoken.
Of course, an absolute defence to libel is that whatever was said was true but no comment on that

By "you" is the point. If I left some paper in my garden and someone wrote something libellous on it for everyone to see I am not publishing it, am I? It's not like the Times web site which vets posts in advance, pays people to write who have contracts with it which include warranties the material isn't libellous.

DTI guidance:
"Question 18. What liability do Intermediary Service Providers have?

The Regulations limit the liability of service providers who unwittingly transmit or store unlawful content provided by others in certain circumstances. There are 3 categories of service providers whose liability is thus limited by the Regulations; those who transmit information (i.e. mere conduits), those who engage in ?caching? information, and those engaged in ?hosting? information. You should refer to Regulations 17- 22 for a full explanation of the requirements you will have to meet in order to fall within these limitations of liability and in case of doubt you should seek legal advice on such issues. "

I didn't see the ecommerce bit xenia and i know that is pretty much your department

but as far as ecommerce goes and the distance selling regulations then websites are not a permanent form as i understand it and in the ecommerce situation an eg price or agreement on an ecommerce website is not binding it is the confirmation in a printable permanent form to the customewr that is eg email, fax, letter

so does that mean that any forum is transient and thus outside the libel law?

The EU brought out a directive which deals with liability if you host web sites and if you cache (or catch) information or are a "mere conduit" of the information but I don't know if that applies here. It certainly means you coudlnt' sue for libel someone who hosts a site which is covered in libels as long as they take the offending words down when asked.

"Question 20. Is there a general obligation for ISP?s to monitor information?

The Regulations do not address the imposition of a general obligation on service providers, when providing the services referred to in Regulations 17-19, to monitor the information that they transmit or store or to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. No such obligations exist in UK law, and their introduction would be incompatible with the requirements of the E-Commerce Directive. "

ah something quite different then

I was just thinking of the simple view that if one law ie relating to distance selling regs said a website was in its nature temporary (despite the existence of caching)then if a libel had to be present in a permanent form then it didn't count

lol I would not make a lawyer

It's trying to distinguish between whether a business is just making the technical means available to let people do things like selling paper or letting people use phones or host their web sites with a provider when there's no liability and those who truly "publish". The company that hosts my web site for example would never be liable for anything I put on it as long as if I libelled someone on it and they were told they took it straight off because they are "hosting" whereas I would be. Query whether public bulletin board is in which category but it might have been decided somewhere else in a case or something and the only argument then might be about whether there was libel or not of course. I don't know.

I have posted a comment, you see I am not sure that MN memebers said anything worse than have been published in the DM article. Only she couldn't really sue Penelope Leach who used the word 'torture' could you???

Doesn't matter. You can be really unfair in whom you choose to sue. You can have 1000 people you can choose and pick any or all.

Actually it's very unusual to issue a claim form (sue) and then mediate. Usually the defendant would want to put in their defence and then try to mediate so the person suing you can see they don't have a leg to stand on and the defendant might win. Instead looks like here you have claim form - i.e. huge worries caused to recipient because of risk of big legal fees, damages etc and not seen brilliant defendant's defence yet and most pressure on defendant or you mediate before either sues.

If someone can answer this without getting into trouble, is it possible to say exactly what it is the complainant sees as a successful outcome from the mediation? I'm not trying to be inflammatory, and if this post is contentious please report it so it is deleted, but I am genuinely at a loss as to what is the expectation.

Just wanted to add "Good Luck"

have sales of any books gone down in the last 6 months? How can one prove that anything written has damaged their reputation? Especially if it were a ridiculous comment eg. Jampot has no fingers" which would be rubbish as I am a prolific poster.

How does one value their damaged reputation?

If for instance an author's book sales increased would that prove that indeed no damage to reputation was done?

completely off topic but has anyone else noticed their purchasing of baby specialist type guidebooks dipped when they joined MN???? Just musing

PC - 110%!!!

Good luck MN.I'm on the side of free speech.

Good point Peachy Clair - perhaps people are just jealous of the power of MN

I've commented too - ohhhh, really hope mine makes it

AC, if it settles that's success for both sides in view in almost any and every case. It is hardly ever worth the risk and cost of going to court on anything. Sometimes you even get enough success if people can save face, get press releases agree. Doesn't even matter if money is paid sometimes and it would usually be confidential except for an agreed press release in certain cases like this so don't expect to know anyway. This is why law is rarely clarified because people are too sensible to be guinea pigs.

mediation is an attempt to achieve whatever you could hope to achieve in court, bt quicker and much much cheaper and far less risk.
in any event, it is to a greater or lesser extent required that the parties attempt to mediate before going to court - the new court rules work very strongly to encourage people to stay away from court except as a very very last resort

Just to add my good luck wishes to MNHQ for the 7th in this sad embarrassing squabble, not for you but the opposing party.
Surely controversy is better than no publicity at all, and as market share does not seem to be a problem in this case, what is the fuss about? A forum that permits people to share very private and embarrassing stories to cheer up others should certainly be allowed to permit the exchange of private opinions on anything to do with kids.
Bringing up kids is such a personal thing anyway. If one way works for some mothers, no amount of snide comments will spoil that, and other ways will work for other people, and all the kids will grow up, no need to start a jihad and mess up freedom of speech on the entire internet.