Board and Saying things

**pmeswani** · 8 January 2009, 20:40

Originally posted by Liability View Post

Totally unrelated to our world of contracting but question

If you have a forum that has a protected area for a number of people and in that forum there are just silly remarks about someone or something [calling them and the company c u next tuesdays and just silly things]- and SOMONE in that forum passes it to the person its about - can there be a case for libel/derogatory comments?

Reason I ask this is that before Xmas a Permy I was working with at a said Bank was making posts about someone and he just foned me asking me [like im a bloody lawyer!] but knowing you lot who know the world and everything I thought Id ask!

I just said no they cant as they are admitting to obtaining information not for public view and unless you are really rich it would be totally pointless suing for libel or derogatory comments.

In most cases, it cannot be used in court as it was not obtained by permission of the poster(s), unless it is in the public domain. If this went to court, the evidence will only be omissible if the poster can testify it's authenticity. I don't know if this extends to the forum board owner or the web hosting supplier.

**Liability** · 8 January 2009, 20:43

Originally posted by pmeswani View Post

In most cases, it cannot be used in court as it was not obtained by permission of the poster(s), unless it is in the public domain. If this went to court, the evidence will only be omissible if the poster can testify it's authenticity. I don't know if this extends to the forum board owner or the web hosting supplier.

Well my logic [albeit I def am not into these things] was that the fact it was NOT on Public View and in a secure forum for handful of people - would surely make it totally inadmissable? Obv if it was open forum like this - than you have a problem. No?

**pmeswani** · 8 January 2009, 20:53

Originally posted by Liability View Post

Well my logic [albeit I def am not into these things] was that the fact it was NOT on Public View and in a secure forum for handful of people - would surely make it totally inadmissable? Obv if it was open forum like this - than you have a problem. No?

That is my understanding. The information is subject to Hearsay. No matter how liable the comment was, it cannot be considered as the basis of a legal challenge. If the poster had posted a defamitory comment on a public blog, then it can be used in court, as it would be considered to be in the public domain.

However, the person concerned would best speak to the CAB for further advice.

**Liability** · 8 January 2009, 20:57

Originally posted by pmeswani View Post

That is my understanding. The information is subject to Hearsay. No matter how liable the comment was, it cannot be considered as the basis of a legal challenge. If the poster had posted a defamitory comment on a public blog, then it can be used in court, as it would be considered to be in the public domain.

However, the person concerned would best speak to the CAB for further advice.

im just linking him to this thread.

I personally have told him to just speak to someone [lawyer friend or something] as you allude.

**pmeswani** · 8 January 2009, 21:07

Originally posted by Liability View Post

im just linking him to this thread.

I personally have told him to just speak to someone [lawyer friend or something] as you allude.

Even though I am no great fan of Wikipedia, the following url may help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_Law

The person who made the defamitory comment made it on the assumption that the person concerned would not see it and that the people on the forum could be trusted not to forward it on. By a third party forwarding it on, they could have altered the text, entrapped the poster or changed the context of which the post was made, no matter how explicit the text is. There are a number of things that the court would need to consider. The use of internet material is a difficult area to use in court.

**Liability** · 8 January 2009, 21:50

Originally posted by pmeswani View Post

Even though I am no great fan of Wikipedia, the following url may help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_Law

The person who made the defamitory comment made it on the assumption that the person concerned would not see it and that the people on the forum could be trusted not to forward it on. By a third party forwarding it on, they could have altered the text, entrapped the poster or changed the context of which the post was made, no matter how explicit the text is. There are a number of things that the court would need to consider. The use of internet material is a difficult area to use in court.

true say mate! true say

**NickFitz** · 8 January 2009, 21:51

Even though the material was published in an area with restricted access, it can still be deemed libellous, as it has been published, if only to a small number of people. (A private letter to one other person can be libellous, in fact, as it constitutes publication in law.)

Once the person objecting to the material is aware of it, they could probably obtain a court order requiring the original material to be disclosed by the owner of the restricted forum, for the purposes of bringing an action.

The actual owner of the forum is legally protected as long as they take all reasonable steps to remove the objectionable material as soon as they are made aware of it - witness the frequent removal of threads in General when a certain name is mentioned. However, the person who made the post would still be liable even though the content had now been removed.

For that reason the owner of the forum would be well advised to retain a copy of the data even though it has been removed from the forum, as otherwise they could be accused of destroying evidence.

**Liability** · 8 January 2009, 21:56

Originally posted by NickFitz View Post

Even though the material was published in an area with restricted access, it can still be deemed libellous, as it has been published, if only to a small number of people. (A private letter to one other person can be libellous, in fact, as it constitutes publication in law.)

Once the person objecting to the material is aware of it, they could probably obtain a court order requiring the original material to be disclosed by the owner of the restricted forum, for the purposes of bringing an action.

The actual owner of the forum is legally protected as long as they take all reasonable steps to remove the objectionable material as soon as they are made aware of it - witness the frequent removal of threads in General when a certain name is mentioned. However, the person who made the post would still be liable even though the content had now been removed.

For that reason the owner of the forum would be well advised to retain a copy of the data even though it has been removed from the forum, as otherwise they could be accused of destroying evidence.

Interesting! I was just reading up that in order for libel and all to stick it also has to be proved that the persons reputation was affected. Amazing area of Law I tell you...no wonder these Lawyers are loaded.

The most disturbing thing is - how much it costs to get these things to court!! BLOODY HELL!

**NickFitz** · 8 January 2009, 22:04

Originally posted by Liability View Post

Interesting! I was just reading up that in order for libel and all to stick it also has to be proved that the persons reputation was affected. Amazing area of Law I tell you...no wonder these Lawyers are loaded.

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

Board and Saying things