Abuse v libel
An interesting decision from Justice Eady, regarding website material. I particularly liked this description by the writer of the piece, David Banks:
Many publications seem to have adopted one of two approaches to moderating online reader contributions: an ultra-cautious, pre-moderation approach, where every post is vetted before it is allowed up on to the website, with obvious drawbacks in terms of staffing and the delay this builds into the forum; or a "see-no-evil" policy, allowing content to be posted unmoderated, and removing it only if a complaint is received. This approach goes contrary to practices in print publication.
And contrary to common sense as well, I'd add, but it's still a bit of a minefield. What this judgment should try to do, with a bit of luck, is to allow a bit more freedom of speech; that's the hope, anyway.
Eady:
"In the case of a bulletin board thread it is often obvious people are just reacting in the heat of the moment. The remarks are often not intended, or to be taken, as serious."
Does this mean an end to huffy bloggers threatening each other with legal action when they get offended with each other? I bloody hope so.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
September 8th, 2008 - 22:11
The see-no-evil policy is said to have important legal advantages for websites: if they don’t vet posts at all, they should not be held responsible for any objectionable posts. Cf. ISPs are not responsible for illegal data being downloaded by users, because they are not looking at that data (at least they are not supposed to). I’ve read about a case (in the US rather than in the UK, I think; sorry I can’t find the link) where a website got into legal trouble over an objectionable post just because they had moderated too much other content.
As to libel actions, I have more fear of well-organised, well-financed mafiosi such as Scientology and chiropractors, driving crucial discussions underground that should be held in the open. The stunt that chiroquacks pulled on Simon Singh and The Guardian last month was spine-chilling (pun unintended). The libel action will either backfire on them, or it will be one more nail in the coffin of free speech.
September 9th, 2008 - 09:47
Let’s see hope this is the beginning of the end of ‘comment moderation’.