I just read a timely article on The Register about anonymity for online libellers.
A fund manager, Terry Smith, chief executive of city firm Collins Stewart Tullett, won undisclosed damages from Jeremy Benjamin, another fund manager after Benjamin had posted what he now accepts as false allegations on the Motley Fool forum, www.fool.co.uk under a pseudonym. The Motley Fool who were forced to give over Benjamin’s details by a court order, had already taken down Benjamin’s post once Mr. Smith contacted them. However, the damage had already been done.
Last night at Blogs in Action, David Carr, who is a director with Big Blog Company, but also happens to be a lawyer, gave an impromptu presentation on the minefield that is online libel.
David pointed out that website owners and bloggers need to be concerned about online libel. David reiterated that the internet is not outside the law and that you can’t post whatever you like.
Just because you didn’t write any potentially libellous articles does not exonerate you, and David ran through an interesting case concerning Demon Internet to prove his point.
Site owners do not have to police their comments, but if someone posts something that is potentially libellous, you are obliged to take it down if someone tells you that they think it is libellous.
This however, puts bloggers in a difficult situation, because if the statement proves to be true rather than libellous, then if by removing it your actions could be deemed libellous.
To counter this, David recommended that site owners put a disclaimer on their site saying that any comments are permitted only because the site owner is letting you post, and that any comments will be removed for any reason at the absolute discretion of the site owner.
