the big agency battle

[expat]

I believe that you can only be guilty of libel and damaging a company's revenue if what you say is false.

In a civil case, if your defence against a libel suit is that what you wrote is true, the onus is on you to prove that it is true: be sure that you can. Anyway, the agency may reckong that the potential damage from your site is big enough that it is worth paying a lawyer to hassle you (not that I am suggesting etc), which will end up costing you money.

A word from their solicitor to your hosting company might be quite effective too.

[ASB]

In a civil case, if your defence against a libel suit is that what you wrote is true, the onus is on you to prove that it is true: be sure that you can. Anyway, the agency may reckong that the potential damage from your site is big enough that it is worth paying a lawyer to hassle you (not that I am suggesting etc), which will end up costing you money.

A word from their solicitor to your hosting company might be quite effective too.

The liability is joint and several, thus the hosting company is vulnerable.

Truth is an absolute defence in libel - but this not stop the statement being defamatory. This means that even if true there is still the possibility of redress (though justification may become a defence to this).

[engineer]

obsolete