Basic libel law in the UK: please read before posting your latest witty comment about the ongoing BBC presenter 'scandal'

[editor]

I'm getting really fucked off with home some posters are behaving so recklessly. The ban hammer is oiled, greased and read to start thumping down on offenders.

In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!

For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.

Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed.

Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC , so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (noteyke has now left the BBC).

It is not for the judge or jury (at the outset) to decide how damaged he is - they just have to confirm that such accusations are false and damaging. Then the judge and/or jury decide on monetary damages.

And it's not just the person making the allegations who can fall foul of the libel laws.

If your offending article about Mr Dyke was published in Magazine X, you could be sued. Magazine X can be sued. The people who drove Magazine X from their depot to the newsstands can be sued (the distributors). The retailers can also be sued. (see note)

Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.

On the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed party.

On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.

Basic UK libel law for idiots by Adam Porter

Basic UK libel law for idiots, urban75, one of the UK's busiest online magazines featuring photography, short stories and useless games!

www.urban75.org

 

[StoneRoad]

A timely reminder editor

maybe some warnings / thread bans are in order ..,

but really, posters should use common sense.
I know rampant speculation is one of the things we do on here, but this particular subject is one that, maybe, should be treated rather more carefully.

 

[Pickman's model]

A timely reminder editor

maybe some warnings / thread bans are in order ..,

but really, posters should use common sense.
I know rampant speculation is one of the things we do on here, but this particular subject is one that, maybe, should be treated rather more carefully.

There's nothing so rare as common sense

 

[StoneRoad]

There's nothing so rare as common sense

True that, especially these days !