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?

Also, libel is defamation in the spoken word. Defamation is the written word. I believe.

Defamation is the act (for example trashing someone's reputation)
Libel is the written word.
Slander is the spoken word.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened more often to be honest, some of the sleb threads or things in the news are
If anyone points out to be careful you get back sarky "yes mum" type comments and they carry on.

I'm pretty sure in the first instance they would have got a standard email from MNHQ, explaining that there was an accusation of libel, and offering them the chance to have their comment deleted.

That's what happened to me, when I said some company or other looked like it sold pound shop tat

Daily Mail has just recycled the story www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168630/Mumsnet-ordered-hand-identities-users.html

Libel started as 'written word' but it actually means a defamatory statement in permanent form, so posted online, spoken out loud on a radio or TV programme because they're recorded, or (I'm guessing) a statement written in chalk on the pavement that dissolved away in the rain five minutes after it was written, IF somebody photographed it first and put it on Twitter.

Slander is a defamatory statement that was made orally and which only survives in the memory of those who heard it.

Lawyers, is that right?

We have been here before,legal action after mn posts
John Hemming MP, and the mn poster. The mn user personal details and job were disclosed by mr hemming

Gina Ford Author

I searched Blackfairy7 and Skohl but it brought up no posts at all, not even threads where posts have been deleted.

The whole thread was probably deleted.

Small technical point. Truth is not a total defense against libel. It is undermined if the agreeved party can prove malice (which is hard). But I would have thought this would be covered by the defense of 'fair comment on a matter of public interest'.

Private messages on mn are between sender and recipient only not visible to other posters,
but mn can still be compelled to release,So,it's private only in that it's not visible to other mn posters
Mn is a public forum,it gets read by many,and widely reproduced e.g. DM,twitter

It's not actually necessary to delete whole threads, just the specific posts that were objected to (assuming poster has not provided details and said 'see you in court')

The usernames given in The Times aren't ones I 'know' IYSWIM, and if there are no results returned at all then either they NCed to post on that thread only, or they joined just to post on that subject (wonder if there have been comments about the doctor on other sites too?), or they have had their entire posting history removed (something I might want, if my username was about to be published in this sort of context, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the potential libel).

Soooo easy to forget you're not just chatting with your mates.

I read an account written by the MNer who got caught up in the SWMNBN debacle, and it was really scary - photographers at her door, legal letters by the ton. And the dawning realisation that what she thought was a silly, jokey comment to online friends was landing her in serious hot water.

We could take a leaf out of Ian Hislop's book and nimbly dodge libel/slander issues by the judicious use of the word "allegedly" .

It's possible to sign up here with false details using a yahoo email also with false details. Though I'm sure you could still be tracked via IP address if it's serious?

Not if you use a vpn or similar. It's not hard to be untraceable at all.

Because that works so well for Private Eye
(actually Private Eye don't use it - it's a HIGNFY joke and obviously they'll only let stuff go out on air after it's been lawyered to within an inch of its life).

Hi all

Thanks for raising this - probably best, as a few of you have noted, not to go into too much detail about the recent case but it's a good opportunity to clarify how current libel and defamation law relates to MN and MNers.

Section 5 of the Defamation Act lays out the process by which someone can ask to have posts removed from online forums including MN. First, they have to explain the basis for their complaint; we then contact the poster to let them know that we've received a complaint, and asking them if they want their posts removed or whether they would like them to stand. If they stand by them, then we leave them up; if they don't, or we haven't heard from them within a set period of time, we remove them.

Either way, if the complainant wants to pursue it further they can go to court and apply for an order to access any information we hold about the poster - so it really is worth remembering that you are ultimately responsible for what you post. There's a good explanation of what constitutes libel/slander/defamation over here.

Thanks for suggesting that we make this all a bit clearer on site - that's a very good idea and we'll get an explanation into our FAQs on Monday.

Online friends that's an oxymoron

Errol

I've been here 8 or 9 years, and SWMNBN was before my time, IIRC.

My name was tacked to this thread as I was indeed one of the people whose details were requested by Queen Ethelburgas school when they took offence to a thread (which is still there in bowlderised form)

I read up about the defamation act
my personal defence was that I had merely expressed an opinion.
As it was the posts were deleted, not the thread.
No legal action was taken against me in the end.

The silly man in this current case has not realised that he is exhibiting archetypal Dunning-Kruger Effect behaviour
and that the Streisland effect will haunt his business for years to come.

"Not if you use a vpn or similar."

Or like I said, use a public computer - you'd only be traceable with CCTV.

MNHQ can the FAQ explanation include information about messaging too? The Defamation Act doesn't seem to explain that private messages can be handed over to a third party to further their case but if the articles are correct then that seems to have happened. Tbh I don't understand why so would appreciate clarification too. TIA

I saw it in the fail. I recall the thread . Nothing terrible was written and there was quite a lot of praise for said person too. Worrying that people writing of their experience could possibly be outed.

It's probably best to assume that anything that you type into your computer:
a - is stored on someone else's computer somewhere
b - would be handed over if there was a court order

I am a little surprised that the court DID say "yes you need to give him these posters' details, but I don't know what they wrote.

Helpful update from MNHQ, and look forward to the further clarification.

I think the big difference between disclosing RL identities of MN posters and posters on most other online sites (Reddit and 4Chan excepted), is that the range of issues covered and the frankness of many posters would make it excruciating for many users to be outed.

The person who believes that they have been defamed / libelled might have the right to know the identity of the poster, but not that they also hate their SIL, struggled with postnatal depression, suffer with vaginal dryness and really really fancy Boris Johnson...

When I was on the receiving end, MNHQ were absolutely fab.

Basically if MNHQ refuse to pass on your full details then MNHQ become legally liable for your comments and the site shuts down.

So MNHQ request that you provide truthful full details.
If you refuse then the claimant is entitled to use their systems to find you

But as I say, expressing an opinion is allowed

in my case, I said that QE were thin skinned
and their actions validated that opinion

In my view some posters cross the line into libel and are not aware of the law or choose to ignore it. So the more we can make it cear the better.
I've a client who has lost £500,000 of business from untrue on-line comments. The few above suggesting they wish people could post what they like should try to put themselves on the other side.

Untrue comment on line can stick around for ages in all kinds of places and does massive damage so must be removed very quickly. Even if removed that does not mean no damage has been done of course and the person posting the material (or refusing to remove it) may well be liable for resulting losses.

As you well know Xenia the old Libel rules and the new Defamation rules are not the same.
Opinion and fair comment are protected - as mine was ultimately

Proving loss from an internet post has yet to succeed anywhere

• I watch these things as after my experience I've helped several clients use the act to control vindictive sites