Important: a note about the 'nonce' threads and naming living individuals

[Meltingpot]

I reckon it'd have to be personal penalties. Send a few directors to jail....

That could be done as well, particularly if there's a strong public interest defence, e.g. the journalist was exposing corruption or covering up of pollution for example.

There is a downside. Consider:

• Company A sues journalist B for libel
• The case fails - apparently decisively
• Journalist B sues company A for malicious libel action
• That case fails too (is it heard in front of a jury? Are there three jurors who just hate all journalists more than they hate drugs company execs?)

The journalist (or newspaper) is now a lot poorer, and their reputation is rather damaged...

That's a fair point. I was assuming the subsequent case would succeed (I wasn't really thinking about it at all tbh).

 

[Waiheke.Island]

Interesting query I guess you could call it. If someone like myself posting from another country throw shit and name call, will they still hold your site accountable ?
Not that I intend to do it, just interested.

 

[Gromit]

Interesting query I guess you could call it. If someone like myself posting from another country throw shit and name call, will they still hold your site accountable ?
Not that I intend to do it, just interested.

If the site doesn't make reasonable attempts to identify and remove such material as soon as is reasonably practicable then a case can be made against them in a UK court no matter the origin / location of the poster.

...Is the impression i get from the original post.

 

[gosub]

because all documentation for hosting and everything is UK based. Editor is effectively a UK publisher of our words

 

[editor]

Interesting query I guess you could call it. If someone like myself posting from another country throw shit and name call, will they still hold your site accountable ?
Not that I intend to do it, just interested.

We're still technically accountable, wherever the geographical source of the libel.

 

[Waiheke.Island]

Thats a bit rough. In a New Zealand website message board you can tell someone or call someone whatever you like. And they do.
Its a shame they have gone OTT over there. It must spoil it for you guys.

 

[gabi]

Thats a bit rough. In a New Zealand website message board you can tell someone or call someone whatever you like. And they do.
Its a shame they have gone OTT over there. It must spoil it for you guys.

That's completely and utterly untrue. Our libel laws are based on the UK's.

 

[Waiheke.Island]

That's completely and utterly untrue. Our libel laws are based on the UK's.

You would be laughed out of court here for some of the rubbish the Poms are getting to court. Are you a Kiwi living here ?
NZ I mean.

 

[gabi]

No, I'm a kiwi living in the UK.

In New Zealand it is an offence under section 123 the Crimes Act 1961 to publish any blasphemous libel. The maximum punishment is one year imprisonment. No one can be prosecuted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Like most of our laws, the libel laws are rooted in british legislation.

 

[Waiheke.Island]

No, I'm a kiwi living in the UK.



Like most of our laws, the libel laws are rooted in british legislation.

How long since you lived in New Zealand ?

 

[gabi]

I don't know what about the first sentence is confusing

 

[Waiheke.Island]

When was the last time you were here ?

 

[gabi]

You edited your post I see.

14 years anyway, in answer to your amended question.

 

[gabi]

And you've edited it again. Nuts.

4 months in answer to your re-edited post.

 

[Waiheke.Island]

Honestly Gabi i think you might be out of touch. Check the last time people were convicted here on such charges.

 

[Waiheke.Island]

Realistic charges.

 

[gabi]

Honestly Gabi i think you might be out of touch. Check the last time people were convicted here on such charges.

Quoting you this time as you seem to have a habit of editing.

Not many libel cases make it to court in the UK either. Usually a threatening letter sorts out the problem. Just like in NZ. Most people can't be arsed/can't afford to go to court.

http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=433

 

[editor]

*Thread moved to UK politics forum. Poster who choose to ignore this will be banned.

 

[editor]

Please note:

Lord McAlpine raises prospect of legal action over false abuse allegations


The BBC and several dozen Twitter users face the prospect of legal action after Lord McAlpine indicated that he could sue for libel over what he described as "wholly false and seriously defamatory" reports linking him to north Wales child abuse allegations.

The Conservative peer issued a statement on Friday after days of frenzied speculation in the wake of a BBC Newsnight report last Friday.

McAlpine has reportedly instructed Sir Edward Garnier QC, the Conservative MP and former solicitor general, to act on his behalf in any potential libel claim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/09/lord-mcalpine-raises-legal-action

Legal position:

Niri Shan, head of media law at London solicitors' firm Taylor Wessing, warned that "ignorance is no defence" for Twitter users and that they could easily find themselves in the high court if McAlpine chooses to take action.

"If you publish to a third party that someone is a paedophile or a suspected paedophile then you are liable to a defamation claim," he said. "They're just as responsible as a newspaper or broadcasters, and just as liable."

Individual Twitter users could even face legal action if McAlpine sues the BBC, because the corporation could argue that it is being sued as a result of what other people have published.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Worth underlining that from the POV of protecting the site to the max it is unwise to even allude too much to specific..."a former tory leader" for example (NOT someone I have in mind as an alledged abuser), when alluding to something in the last 20 years can only mean a few people.

Also, 3rd party stuff "X said Y did Z" is a no-no.

I've done both of these with fairly good intent elsewhere online and retracted or been deleted.

It's not as if we KNOW these people anyway, it's all a blur really and for the police to sort out if they're not inept or obstructed for some reason.

The important things, as I keep saying, are often far more in the themes and patterns.

 

[Orang Utan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20269114

 

[editor]

This is worth reading just in case anyone thinks it's OK to repeat something 'because it's all over Twitter."

When individuals post material online, they act as publishers and their publications are subject to the same laws as those of professional publishers, such as newspapers.

This includes publications made by way of a tweet. A retweet also amounts to a further publication.
The person who retweets that material will be responsible for the content of that retweet.
In addition, the individual who originally tweeted the defamatory tweet is also likely to be held responsible for any retweets.

While this may seem beyond the original tweeter's control, this is because it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence that a defamatory tweet might be retweeted.
It is not a defence for an individual to say that he was simply repeating a statement by someone else. Just because something is out there does not making it OK to repeat.
The courts consider each tweet to be a libel, and the more often it is repeated, the more damage it can do and the more libel actions it may provoke.

Furthermore, when it comes to proving the truth of the allegation, it is insufficient to point to the fact that somebody has been accurately quoted - the publisher has to prove the substance of the allegation.
In other words, if I were to make an allegation about my boss that is retweeted by my friend - my friend must be able to prove the allegation, not just simply that I had said it.

Even if you cannot prove that the tweet is true, there could be a credible public interest defence.
However, in previous cases the courts have made it very clear that they expect a defendant to demonstrate that he or she has engaged in responsible journalism before the defence will succeed, including verifying the story and giving the subject an opportunity to comment.

For people simply retweeting something they have read on Twitter, this defence is unlikely to succeed.
In these cases, people could be exposed to claims for damages approaching six figures depending on the extent of publication and any other mitigating factors - such as a swift public apology.

If Lord McAlpine does sue in relation to some of the recent tweets, the cases will join the increasing number resulting from individuals' use of social media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20299551

 

[editor]

Just to remind people: frivolous off-topic posts will be removed from this thread.

 

[Quartz]

You might want to sticky this for a little while.

 

[editor]

It's been stickied for some time. Our policy about posting up names here remains the same: we first remove and warn and then we remove and ban.

 

[Corax]

I don't really understand why anyone can genuinely fail to understand this, or have any problem with it. It doesn't restrict 'free speech' or 'outing' people in the slightest.

If you have information that someone's a nonce, you can very easily start a free blog with that info on it. You can even let people on here know you've started a blog on the subject, and are looking for comments. Free speech prevails, but you're taking the risk personally rather than dumping it on editor. Where's the problem?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

If you have information that someone's a nonce, you can very easily start a free blog with that info on it.

Or better still, take that information to the Police

 

[Corax]

Or better still, take that information to the Police

Well yes. But that doesn't always result in the response that you or I may expect...

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Sorry guys... you're talking with your collective dicks hanging out!

I've faced similar shit on my boards and the only thing you can be 'forced' to do, is take down the 'offending' post, and unless you refuse to take it down when asked to do so, you can't be held responsible for the 'offending' post, and implying that you can be is simply scaremongering!

That's all...

 

[DexterTCN]

It's been stickied for some time. Our policy about posting up names here remains the same: we first remove and warn and then we remove and execute the poster.

Jesus Christ.

Well...harsh but fair.