« Huzzah! Huzzah! | Main | They Don’t Like It Up ’Em »
March 22, 2006
Libel Law Sucks!
Over at Arthur’s Seat. We’re in trouble now folks. Someone’s just won a libel case: for defamation in a comment in a chat room.
March 22, 2006 in Weblogs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8345c51b569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Libel Law Sucks!:
» Insults Punished from Harry's Place
The Times reports on an award of damages made to a UKIP politician who had been insulted by a woman in an internet chatroom: Tracy... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 22, 2006 12:58:56 PM
» Insults Punished from Harry's Place
The Times reports on an award of damages made to a UKIP politician who had been insulted by a woman in an internet chatroom: Tracy... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 22, 2006 1:00:25 PM
» Insults Punished from Harry's Place
The Times reports on an award of damages made to a UKIP politician who had been insulted by a woman in an internet chatroom: Tracy... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 22, 2006 1:55:22 PM
» Insults Punished from Harry's Place
The Times reports on an award of damages made to a UKIP politician who had been insulted by a woman in an internet chatroom: Tracy... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 22, 2006 2:09:42 PM
» Insults Punished from Harry's Place
The Times reports on an award of damages made to a UKIP politician who had been insulted by a woman in an internet chatroom: Tracy... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 22, 2006 3:14:55 PM
» Insults Punished from Harry's Place
The Times reports on an award of damages made to a UKIP politician who had been insulted by a woman in an internet chatroom: Tracy... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 22, 2006 4:08:44 PM
Comments
A bit more from me - in short, we knew a libel case was going to be won sooner or later for online content - if this is the way it's going to be, it could actually be quite a good thing...
Posted by: Nosemonkey | Mar 22, 2006 2:17:40 PM
And yes, I really should get a hang of this trackback lark (although at least I haven't trackbacked four times, like Harry's Place...)
Posted by: Nosemonkey | Mar 22, 2006 2:18:57 PM
I'm desperately trying to remember whether it was at Harry's Place or - much, much preferred option - Crooked Timber, that someone called me a racist for discussing Notting Hill Carnival Crime. If it's the latter, I wonder if I can sue the site as well as the commentator?
Posted by: James Hamilton | Mar 22, 2006 5:55:37 PM
I think the Times article makes a good point, that libel should be an option for the powerless against the powerful. Of course it's not, but let that go for a moment. So when(say) Harry's Place, a very I well-read blog (I saw something like 9000 visits a day) labelled wrongly the Treasurer of Christian CND an anti-semite, I don't really see why absent an apology he shouldn't have been able to claim damages. But comments in chats, on blogs like this, it's idiotic.
Posted by: Matthew | Mar 22, 2006 8:38:17 PM
So, you think that it should be acceptable to spread lies and untruths about people as long as it is on the internet?
Fortuntely, our law does not concur.
Posted by: Marcin | Mar 22, 2006 9:31:02 PM
Net bloggeres needn't be too worried, Nothing has changed as far as the defendent's web site is concerned:
http://www.lvl9.org/
and from what she is saying on there she doesn't have to pay Michael Keith-Smith a penny of either the costs or the award. If you're going to sue someone that is anonymous for alleged libel I advise you try and discover their financial background, otherwise it can be very costly indeed. The case should have been thrown out anyway as Mr. Smith was the moderator of the Yahoo group where the alleged libel took place so he doesn't deserve a penny anyway. Poetic justice
Posted by: Phil | May 8, 2006 4:06:32 PM
Net bloggeres needn't be too worried, Nothing has changed as far as the defendent's web site is concerned:
http://www.lvl9.org/
and from what she is saying on there she doesn't have to pay Michael Keith-Smith a penny of either the costs or the award. If you're going to sue someone that is anonymous for alleged libel I advise you try and discover their financial background, otherwise it can be very costly indeed. The case should have been thrown out anyway as Mr. Smith was the moderator of the Yahoo group where the alleged libel took place so he doesn't deserve a penny anyway. Poetic justice
Posted by: Phil | May 8, 2006 4:06:58 PM
