High Court clarifies blog owners’ liability for libellous comments

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.

As The Register explains:

“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.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Online politics.
Advert

6 Comments

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Mark ValladaresMark Valladares
    @ Nigel, Then you’re not really being censored, are you? You are perfectly at liberty to publish and be damned. You decide the policy and accept or reject ...
  • Jeremy Hargreaves
    Thanks for the comments and interest above. Helen I certainly hope you will apply. And others! Links in the original piece, as I'm sure you saw. @Tad Jones ...
  • Paul Barker
    We all owe the LDV Team a vote of thanks for their work & patience....
  • Nigel Scott
    It is some time since I considered LibDem hosted websites and Facebook pages to be tolerant of free speech. I agree with John Stuart Mill: "The peculiar evil of...
  • Catherine Jane Crosland
    Mark, thank you for this article. This is a subject that requires very great sensitivity, and I can see that it must, at times, be difficult for the editorial t...