Like most blogs, Lib Dem Voice encourages and accepts contributions from far and wide. Not only do we take articles from Lib Dems and, on occasion, others, we also allow pretty much anyone to comment on blog posts.
But , if someone were to post a libellous or defamatory comment, could we be legally liable?
That’s the question the High Court has been considering in relation to an item posted on the Labourhome blog, and many site owners who might think they’re not liable may be in for a nasty shock.
In brief, a libellous post was made to the Labourhome website in 2007. Site owner Alex Hilton says he was not aware of the post initially and, when notified, removed it immediately.
The High Court has judged that Hilton may still be liable because, whether or not that post was moderated, he did moderate some posts on the site, either before or after posting. That included giving some posts recommended status.
“From time to time Mr Hilton considered whether entries appearing on the ‘Recommended’ and ‘Recent Blogs’ lists on the homepage were suitable for increasing to a more prominent position,” said Mr Justice Stadlen. “Upon promotion far more detail was provided about each post on the homepage including the date, the time of the post and a preview of part of the post comprising anything from a couple of lines to several paragraphs, pictures and video clips.”
These activities, said Mr Justice Stadlen, “went beyond mere storage so that Regulation 19 immunity would not be available in respect of liability for defamatory words appearing on the homepage”.
Mr Justice Stadlen said that even to fix the spelling in a post could cost the host the protection of Regulation 19.
And the legal advice? Here’s what Struan Robertson from OUT-LAW.COM says:
Many sites apply some form of moderation to all user contributions for reasons of quality control, whether that’s before or after publication. This ruling just shows how dangerous that is and how narrow the safe harbour may be.
Even an attempt to filter for profanities or comment spam, if done manually, involves a risk for the publisher. If you want to be sure that you’re not liable for what your users say, the judge is basically saying you need to ignore user contributions completely until you get a complaint.
The full ruling can be read here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
6 Comments
Strictly it’s LabourHome rather than LabourList.
Corrected – thanks.
Why does the High Court consider a blog post to be the same as a comment? I can see their point that someone publishing a blog post written by someone else must have some responsibility, but it seems completely unfair if that were extended to reader comments. Moderation should not be discouraged by such perverse rulings – it’s almost as if the High Court would prefer blogs’ comment threads to be filled up with swearwords and spam.
Yet another reason to get all parties to take libel reform seriously – I urge anyone who hasn’t yet signed the petition to do so here: http://www.libelreform.org/sign
Iain, not sure how this applies to comments.
LabourHome is an open blog platform, same as DailyKos or even WordPress.Com. The post that’s being contested wasn’t a comment, it was a post made by someone on their personal ‘diary’ blog, and it’s those that get highlighted to the front page, in the same way that other blog platforms sometimes promote highlights.
I do, however, think the ruling is very dodgy, but it’s not about a comment, it’s about a full post.
In fact Iain, I think Out Law disagrees with your interpretation more than you’re saying, and it’s not settled yet. Full article:
Ergo, we await the full verdict.
Is Mr Justice Eady taking a wee break?