Board and Saying things

[Liability]

I always understood that for proof of libel it was merely necessary for the material to be defamatory; it was for slander that there was the additional requirement of proving that reputation had been damaged. This was certainly the case in English Law within the last twenty years, although it's possible that changes in either statute or case law have altered this.

The damage (or lack thereof) to reputation would certainly have some bearing on the damages awarded in a successful action for libel, but I don't think it has any bearing on the actual question of whether a libel has occurred.

Still, IANAL.

One interesting aspect of current UK law is that, if your web site has an automated system for detecting and removing offensive material posted by users but something gets through, then you as the owner of that site become liable, as well as the user responsible. If you have no such system, only the user is liable (assuming you remove the offensive material when notified). Weird

Odd hey

In which case surely the libel case could be expensive? For example if there are say handful of cyberspace junkies just talking and posting silly things - the real effect of the libel/derog comments wouldnt actually go outside of the forum/cyberspace. So why would you even bother I guess

Its like me calling someone a raving homosexual....? is that libel? Assume not?

[NickFitz]

Odd hey

In which case surely the libel case could be expensive? For example if there are say handful of cyberspace junkies just talking and posting silly things - the real effect of the libel/derog comments wouldnt actually go outside of the forum/cyberspace. So why would you even bother I guess

Its like me calling someone a raving homosexual....? is that libel? Assume not?

In principle, one should immediately seek to resolve any issue that might lay one open to action at law.

In practice, one might choose to take the attitude that one can probably ignore it, as they'll find the cost of bringing an action (which they have no guarantees of winning) so great that they won't bother.

However, it's important to bear in mind that if they do bring an action, and they win, then it is those against whom they brought the action who will be liable for those costs.

At this point, human psychology comes into play.

If it was a question of suing a builder over a shoddily constructed wall, the average person would probably cut their losses on learning that they could lose at court and have to pay both their own and the other party's costs, even though their action seems to have a solid basis (unlike the wall).

With libel, a deeper and more worrisome aspect of human nature seems to come into play: feeling that they themselves have been attacked and insulted, rather than merely ripped off for a few hundred measly quid, people will pursue their grievance to the ends of the world, and never count the cost. Against the best advice of their own lawyers they will insist on pursuing the action.

Sometimes they come to their senses and accept a small payoff, on condition that they receive a public apology that describes it as "a substantial sum in settlement." But that's often the best that can be achieved. People take libel so personally

Whenever these questions come up, I always remember Jerome K Jerome (in Three Men on the Bummel) quoting an editor for whom he used to work:

"If a man stopped me in the street and demanded of me my watch, I should refuse to give it to him. If he threatened to take it by force, I feel I should, though not a fighting man, do my best to protect it. If, on the other hand, he should assert his intention of trying to obtain it by means of an action in any court of law, I should take it out of my pocket and hand it to him, and think I had got off cheaply."

[Liability]

Id agree- its def a massive industry

Makes you think overall -

If you call someone a raging homosexual is this libelous? I mean in the context of banter? I must have called people odd things over times! Surely the context of the comment gets taken into account? I guess this is where it gets wishy washy and risky in terms of winning and the cost!

[xoggoth]

Much depends on whether some individual wants to make a fuss. There was a case a while ago, which I think was commented on here, with some litigous personality taking legal actions for comments of the sort we throw at each other all the time on here. He did not get anywhere but one could waste a lot of time. I got threatened with libel action twice, ridiculous circumstances but quite worrying at the time.

[ASB]

Id agree- its def a massive industry

Makes you think overall -

If you call someone a raging homosexual is this libelous? I mean in the context of banter? I must have called people odd things over times! Surely the context of the comment gets taken into account? I guess this is where it gets wishy washy and risky in terms of winning and the cost!

Well if you call them it it won't be libellous - but could be slander. [Though if you call them it on a bb it is written and therfore potentially libellous]. If memory serves there are the following basic defences to a defamtion action:-

- Truth
- Justification

Truth is not an absolute defence. It is possible for true statement to be defamatory - though you would probably have to make a special effort for this to be the case.

Justification may be a defence to the sort of name calling you describe. Though anybody taking action in the sort of circumstances you describe has probably been very poorly advised.

It is NOT Possible to defame somebody unless they are identifiable (and alive). Thus you can call my nickname whatever you like - unless it is actually identifiable as me.

Also you have to be able to actually injure somebodys reputation. Thus you could probably say whatever you liked about Fred West (if he's still alive) and whilst it may be defamatory it is not likely to injure his reputation.

You might like to look up the case of Queensberry and Oscar Wilde for perhaps one of the least sensible libel actions of all time...