Defamatory material on an internet forum

guerito

Just wondering, what is the law re defamation on an internet forum? Say for example that poster A on boards.ie posts defamatory comments (assume that the coments are clearly defamatory) about person B. Would Poster A and boards.ie each be liable for the defamation - poster A for the comments and boards.ie for publication?

If boards.ie deletes the posts, will that completely discharge any duty of care it has? Would the speed of such deletion and whether or not any comments are left in another poster's quotes affect complete discharge? I assume from the general boards.ie policy toward potentially defamatory posts that the position is something approaching the above.

*I'm not considering suing boards.ie or anyone who posts here. Just interested.

The case is Mulvaney & ors v The Sporting Exchange Ltd trading as Betfair [2009] IEHC 133

Basically so long as the forum removes the defamatory post as soon as it becomes aware of it or should have been aware of it they'll be fine.

EDIT: Just to say, I am not sure the new Defamation Act affects this at all but since there is zero case law on the new Act I really cannot know for sure.

Tom Young

What Kayroo said!

Mulvaney & ors v The Sporting Exchange Ltd trading as Betfair [2009] IEHC 133: or the Betfair case, is the case in point here and the other law exercised was UK: Godfrey v Damon Internet and Bunt v Tilley.

The below defence specifically arises.

The Host defence arises under SI. 68 of 2003 or The eCommerce Directive (2000/31/EC) - This reads as follows:

Reg. 18.

(1) An intermediary service provider who provides a relevant service consisting of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service shall not be liable for the information stored at the request of that recipient if —

(a) the intermediary service provider does not have actual knowledge of the unlawful activity concerned and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which that unlawful activity is apparent, or

(b) the intermediary service provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply where the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or the control of the intermediary service provider referred to in that paragraph.

(3)This Regulation shall not affect the power of any court to make an order against an intermediary service provider requiring the provider not to infringe, or to cease to infringe, any legal rights.

Libel and slander are now merged in Ireland under the 2009 Defamation Act, however you should note that in the UK case of Smith v ADVFN Plc. [2008] EWHC 1797 Eady J considers this point in some detail.

Yes, a host discharges its liability once knowledge comes into being and indeed they act upon the report or complaint or not as the case may be.

There are issues with this Directive and regulation in re. Definitions. I would also remark that the ECJ Judgment in Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier which eaves unanswered the central question: what conduct is required before it can be said that such conduct is something more than merely technical, automatic and passive.

Tom

Quaere: One now asks whether or not moderating is a good thing! ..

Tom Young

Tom Young wrote: »

What Kayroo said!

I reckon a new sig for you Tom.

Tom Young wrote: »

Quaere: One now asks whether or not moderating is a good thing! ..

Now that is an interesting question, legal liability of the moderator.

noope

It's not on an Irish level, but the Google Italy case is interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/24/google-italy-youtube-video-analysis

The content of the video wasn't defamatory (viewed as an invasion of privacy), but what's interesting is the court's recognition of an obligation to pre-screen the content of its platforms (Youtube etc.). Extreme!

Tom Young

noope wrote: »

It's not on an Irish level, but the Google Italy case is interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/24/google-italy-youtube-video-analysis

The content of the video wasn't defamatory (viewed as an invasion of privacy), but what's interesting is the court's recognition of an obligation to pre-screen the content of its platforms (Youtube etc.). Extreme!

That ruling was totally incorrect to my mind. I see a number of commentators both here and abroad made remarks on it and the fact that the Court seemed to ignore directly effective and supreme EU law.

Tom Young

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon a new sig for you Tom.

Here listen you ... :eek:

Just because I was wrong the once! lol

noope

Yep, definitely to be criticised. I'm assuming that they'll appeal it all the way to Europe if necessary. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

How bleak would the internet be if google etc. had to ensure that everyone behaved themselves.

Tom Young

noope wrote: »

Yep, definitely to be criticised. I'm assuming that they'll appeal it all the way to Europe if necessary. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

How bleak would the internet be if google etc. had to ensure that everyone behaved themselves.

Agree.

guerito

Thanks for the replies folks.