Sunday Times story today about Mumsnet having to reveal posters' names

[BIWI]

Without going into specific details, obviously, there's clearly a huge issue here about libel/responsibility for our posts.

I wonder if it would be a good idea for MNHQ to reiterate the current situation, so that people appreciate what they shouldn't (and what they can) post?

Given the amount of angst expressed in numerous threads, when posters realise that what they've splurged on Mumsnet has ended up in the Daily Fail, I would imagine that many, many posters aren't aware of this issue, which is why I started this post.

(And I deliberately didn't post a link because I didn't want it to lead to speculation about the particular story, although I accept that it was inevitable that the link would be posted!)

Isn't it misleading to talk about revealing the "names"? It makes more sense if MN reveals the IP address, and whatever information they have to id the posters. A genuine person might enter her real name and ID details, trolls will just sign as Donald Trump or Monkey Business.

Of course, the law still applies to online posts. I have seen a few instance of people being prosecuted for their tweets. Whilst I did not agree with their posts in the slightest, I found it frightening that in these instance freedom of speech no longer applied. They were not targeting a specific person or encouraging terrorism either.

Some posters might not realise at all that it's not just about libel, some opinion are simply not allowed, and they are not as anonymous as they believe, unless they go to a public internet.

It isn't the same thing at all, no, but it's amazing the number of people who totally ignore all the official channels for dealing with a problem. Of course sometimes people take to social media after trying and failing to get something dealt with the official way, but there are angry people who just want to shout and vent and do maximum damage who've never even tried to make a formal complaint.

I saw this years ago when I was a school governor and a parent with a valid complaint about the head (which I would have supported) ignored the official procedures and went straight off to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman, the council's auditor, our MP, the elected Mayor and Uncle Tom Cobley and all (none of whom could or would do anything about his complaint). Eventually he lost interest and moved on to something else. The LEA was therefore never forced to deal properly with the initial issue and there was a lot of damage to the trust of parents in the school. Not a good outcome for anybody.

I find this all fascinating, but scarey.
Libel and defamation of character are 2 different things.

I wonder what they said?
If you go to a restaurant and then review it on trip advisor, you are giving your opinion.

If you did have surgery by him, or anyone else, and wrote about it here on MN, where does the libel 'grey area/ lines' start and finish?

And if you still maintained what you had written was true, or valid, or your opinion, when you are approached by MN offering you the chance to have it deleted, you might think: it is probably best, or another part you might think: no! do you know what I don't want to, I still standby what I wrote.

very tricky situation.

Maybe newish posters aren't aware of the law. Anyone who's been around a while will know there was a massive issue over She Who Must Not Be Named - this is not a new thing!

I can't see how any of this is doing Dr Sorens**n any favours.
Presumably this thread too will get deleted?

I really think there is no point in speculating about that particular case here because too much depends on exactly what was said and how, but yes, a timely reminder that what we write here is visible for ever and just because we use NNs does not mean that we are not accountable for what we are saying.
Libel and defamation are to be avoided

"I hate the result of my cosmetic surgery and worry that it was not carried out correctly" is a perfectly valid statement to make, "I think my cosmetic surgery Mr Cutalot is an incompetent twat who ought to have his licence removed" not so much...

After Jeff, I resigned up with a completely seperate email address and fake name. It would all have to come from ip address (unless they try and track down Ella BigBoobs from the electoral role )

Well it will if people continue the debate about him! Which is why I didn't want the link to be posted ...

Errol - the law was changed after the SWMNBN debacle, I think. Which is what I think needs to be made clear by MNHQ.

Oblomov, an opinion is not expressing something as fact.
"I hated that restaurant" - fine
"My plate was dirty" - fine (not fine if you are out dining, but fine to put on TripAdvisor)
"The restaurant owner does not give a shit about his customers and will kill us all with his gawdawful food" - not fine.

I do think some people don't see that this isn't their private chat room

Like the spalding murders. Despite a rule saying you cannot name them, people were still dropping names and speculating. I even had PM's asking me to name them which obviously I can't do. The law says I can't. Don't get me wrong, it's out there on the Internet who they are and why they did it but it doesn't mean you can talk about it freely

Yes, MNHQ can and do track people down via IP addresses.

It's (often) pretty clear whether it's defamatory, and then it's up to the court to decide if it's fair comment or not.

The poster needs to choose at the very outset if they are going to defend their words in court, and giving them the opportunity to identify themselves and do that is a normal thing (happened on a thread just the other week, and I remember posting on the Site Issues thread about that one too).

If they are not willing to do that, then the comment has to be deleted.

The only unusual thing about this incident is The Times reporting on it.

SWMNBN debacle?

Reading the full article, he has not only asked for names, but for copies of all messages sent by PM (I've blanked out the usernames) : "Under the order, Mumsnet must reveal the users’ real identities and provide copies of all communications sent over its private messaging system between xx xx and other users that it reasonably believes refer to Sorensen or his surgery. The identities of other users of the site will be protected."
That's quite scary. I didn't realise private messages could be made public?

"She Who Must Not Be Named", Soubriquest

Google it.

Dark days....

"Though I'm sure you could still be tracked via IP address if it's serious?"

And if you're using a public computer they'd then have to use CCTV to find out who you were I suppose. I can't see them asking an internet cafe or library for CCTV in a libel case.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2820852-Is-it-ok-to-discuss-issues-with-companies-who-target-mums-to-work-for-them-and-to-highlight-any-issues-or-will-they-be-deleted

She Who Must Not Be Named, Soubriquet (i.e. Gina Ford)

BIWI!!

Now you've done it....

Yes Errol. This is just a repeat of you-know-who F*rd from years ago.
But sometimes we all need reminding of these things.

BIWI
Naughty naughty

It's surprising it doesn't happen more often tbh. Especially on some of the celebrity "secret" threads.

There are businesses/individuals/institutions who care enough about online criticism to effectively shut down discussion by threatening legal action. We are not allowed to discuss a particular local school, a cafe and a Greek restaurant on my local forum ... they have all basically threatened the administrator with legal action for any (even slightly) negative comment.

Ah yes.
I've heard about that