Defamation from online posts

FreudianSlippers

RE: this thread in the After Hours forum, does anyone know of any cases in this jurisdiction (or more likely the UK) in which a person was successfully (or unsuccessfully) sued for defamation arising from posting on a forum or messageboard?

I can't think of any cases off the top of my head and don't think I've ever even heard of a case where someone sued over a messageboard or forum post.

I'm on holiday right now before getting to work in October, so I have no access to westlaw or anything.

I don't believe that forum posts could/would be defamatory tbh, and even if they were I find it difficult to believe that boards.ie (corporation: daft.ie?) would be liable.

aidan_walsh

I don't believe that forum posts could/would be defamatory tbh, and even if they were I find it difficult to believe that boards.ie (corporation: daft.ie?) would be liable.

Why would they be less so than something offline?

Robbo

Mulvaney & Others -v- Betfair [2009] IEHC 133 and Godfrey -v- Demon [2000] 3 WLR 1020 were both mentioned in a recent paper by Karen Murphy on Online Defamation in light of the 2009 Act. The article was in the Irish Law Times.

It would appear that an active moderation policy will act as a defence. This stems from the eCommerce directive.

And then there was the Voldemort issue in this parish...

FreudianSlippers

I'm considering (teasing out) 2 ideas on this one:

The first being that the statement of an anonymous member on boards.ie could hardly be considered to be lowering the opinion of that person in the eyes of right-thinking members of society;

Coupled with Section 21(b) of the 2009 Act:
the extent to which the statement was made in circumstances in which it was likely to have been reasonably understood as a statement of opinion rather than a statement consisting of an allegation of fact

I find it hard to believe that [insert public figure here] is a cocaine addict published on boards.ie could be considered to be anything but an opinion. Plus, there would be no circumstances IMO that it could actually lower the opinion of that person.

That's mainly why I was interested in case law. I'd be very interested to read the opinions of Judges on this matter. It seems widely open to interpretation.

FreudianSlippers

Robbo wrote: »

Mulvaney & Others -v- Betfair [2009] IEHC 133 and Godfrey -v- Demon [2000] 3 WLR 1020 were both mentioned in a recent paper by Karen Murphy on Online Defamation in light of the 2009 Act. The article was in the Irish Law Times.

It would appear that an active moderation policy will act as a defence. This stems from the eCommerce directive.

And then there was the Voldemort issue in this parish...

Thanks! I'll have a read of those when I'm home. The moderation policy being fairly active would still depend greatly on whether it was a matter of opinion though.
It's hard to believe that any post on boards.ie could be considered a matter of fact to me.

Tom Young

OisinT wrote: »

RE: this thread in the After Hours forum, does anyone know of any cases in this jurisdiction (or more likely the UK) in which a person was successfully (or unsuccessfully) sued for defamation arising from posting on a forum or messageboard?

I can't think of any cases off the top of my head and don't think I've ever even heard of a case where someone sued over a messageboard or forum post.

I'm on holiday right now before getting to work in October, so I have no access to westlaw or anything.

I don't believe that forum posts could/would be defamatory tbh, and even if they were I find it difficult to believe that boards.ie (corporation: daft.ie?) would be liable.

Mulvaney has been cited.

Host defence on unmoderated posts, SI 68 of 2003. Regulation 18. As can be seen in that case. Super Court appeal pending on same. Bunt v Tilley is the UK analogue, Godfrey was surpassed.

Should posts be pre-moderated (as the Irish Times recently learned) then you lose this defence.

Tom

FreudianSlippers

Thanks everyone, I actually find this whole concept really interesting outside of even the boards.ie context!

How immediate does the moderation need to be? Would the post need to be removed as soon as the moderator (who is, in the context of this site, an unpaid volunteer not contractually connected to Boards.ie as a company, although I am sure there is an argument that they may have some sort of fiduciary duty) becomes aware of the post or as soon as he becomes aware that it may be defamatory?

If Boards.ie, for example, was sued would there be a legal implication for the moderator?

MrPudding

OisinT wrote: »

The first being that the statement of an anonymous member on boards.ie could hardly be considered to be lowering the opinion of that person in the eyes of right-thinking members of society;

Does the fact that the poster is anonymous have any relevance?

MrP

FreudianSlippers

MrPudding wrote: »

Does the fact that the poster is anonymous have any relevance?

MrP

Not legally, but I was thinking it would add to the assumption that it could not be a statement of fact, rather clearly an opinion.

MrPudding

OisinT wrote: »

Not legally, but I was thinking it would add to the assumption that it could not be a statement of fact, rather clearly an opinion.

I am not sure it makes a difference. In Byrne v Dean the fact that the person that put up the poster was unknown did not seem to be relevant, it was still published.

MrP

Amazotheamazing

Can an online name be sued. Say some said "Amazotheamazing is a wife-beater", could I sue them for defamation? There's maybe a handful of people in the real world who know who I am on here and (in this instance) all of them know I'm not married or given to beating my girlfriend. Do I (the real-life me) have any interest in my online name that would allow me sue for it being defamed?

My own opinion is that I couldn't take a case, and I've never come across a situation where a case has been taken but as people become more established as long term users of websites, will that change?

MrPudding

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Can an online name be sued. Say some said "Amazotheamazing is a wife-beater", could I sue them for defamation? There's maybe a handful of people in the real world who know who I am on here and (in this instance) all of them know I'm not married or given to beating my girlfriend. Do I (the real-life me) have any interest in my online name that would allow me sue for it being defamed?

My own opinion is that I couldn't take a case, and I've never come across a situation where a case has been taken but as people become more established as long term users of websites, will that change?

The defamatory material only needs to be communicated to one person, so the fact that only a handful would know it related to you would not really be relevant, or more accurately, not necessarily a bar to you taking a successful action. Additionally, you do not need to be named specifically. It can enough enough that people could work out who the material referred to.

The fact that they "know" you are not given to beating your wife / gf is kind of the whole point of it. If you did beat her, and they all knew, then you have not been defamed. The fact that they believe you don't and someone is telling them you do is the actual act which might lower their perception of you and therefore be potentially actionable.

I am not sure that there is a lot of case law around this type of thing at the moment, but it could get interesting.

MrP

Amazotheamazing

MrPudding wrote: »

The defamatory material only needs to be communicated to one person, so the fact that only a handful would know it related to you would not really be relevant, or more accurately, not necessarily a bar to you taking a successful action. Additionally, you do not need to be named specifically. It can enough enough that people could work out who the material referred to.

The fact that they "know" you are not given to beating your wife / gf is kind of the whole point of it. If you did beat her, and they all knew, then you have not been defamed. The fact that they believe you don't and someone is telling them you do is the actual act which might lower their perception of you and therefore be potentially actionable.

I am not sure that there is a lot of case law around this type of thing at the moment, but it could get interesting.

MrP

I agree with you to a point, the reason I don't think I could take a case is that anyone who knows me wouldn't believe such a thing, especially on an online forum (I'd be pretty upset if the people who know me believed such a post, iirc, they have to believe the accusation is true for me to be defamed?).

Anyhow to take it a step further, say no-one in the real world knows I post here as Amazotheamazing, but someone says the above "Amazotheamazing beats his wife", can I, as the person behind the username sue even though the only place my reputation has been damaged (in this instance) is on here?

MrPudding

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I agree with you to a point, the reason I don't think I could take a case is that anyone who knows me wouldn't believe such a thing, especially on an online forum (I'd be pretty upset if the people who know me believed such a post, iirc, they have to believe the accusation is true for me to be defamed?).

Whether or not they actually believe it is kind of irrelevant. If the material is of the type that is capable of causing right minded people to think les of you, then that is all that matters.

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Anyhow to take it a step further, say no-one in the real world knows I post here as Amazotheamazing, but someone says the above "Amazotheamazing beats his wife", can I, as the person behind the username sue even though the only place my reputation has been damaged (in this instance) is on here?

I don’t know. I have not researched it, and I don’t even know if there is anything to research just now. My instinct would be that you could not. Only “real persons” can sue for defamation, so it could probably be argued that you boards username is not a real person. If that was the case then no one has been defamed and so no cause of action. I think… Perhaps someone with more than 1 year of LLB study could jump in.


MrP

drkpower

I dont see why an alias cant be defamed. If for instance, when Stephen King was writing as Richard Bachman (and lets assume for the moment, noone knew he was writing as Richard Bachman), I cant see why SK would have been precluded from suing someone who wrote defamtory material about RB.

The second point is whether the alias has actually developed any kind of reputation capable of being defamed; the answer is of course, yes, when it comes to RB, but doubtful, but not impossible, in the case of most people's online aliases.

Our man in Havana

Also you would have to prove that your online alias is actually you.

Robbo

Haddockman wrote: »

Also you would have to prove that your online alias is actually you.

Defamation Act 2009, S.6(3): "A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reason-ably be understood as referring to him or her."

I presume as well there's no need to forget previous cases on this like Slab Murphy -v- Times Newspapers.

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

The second point is whether the alias has actually developed any kind of reputation capable of being defamed; the answer is of course, yes, when it comes to RB, but doubtful, but not impossible, in the case of most people's online aliases.

Are you suggesting a situation where the alias is separate from the person?

For example most people on here would know who DeVore actually is so in that case there would be no issue but let's imagine Pighead wasn't known by anyone on the site in real life. His online alias has a significant reputation and standing (not commenting either way on it) so could it be defamed as distinct from the person who controls it?

I am almost certain the answer is no but it's the thought that entered my mind when I read your post.

EDIT: The Act obviously defines defamation as against a person but must that be a natural person? Companies can be defamed so why not online personae?

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

EDIT: The Act obviously defines defamation as against a person but must that be a natural person? Companies can be defamed so why not online personae?

I thought it had to be a natural person, that companies could not sue...? That is why I thought that an online persona could not be defamed.

MrP

Our man in Havana

Robbo wrote: »

Defamation Act 2009, S.6(3): "A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reason-ably be understood as referring to him or her."

I presume as well there's no need to forget previous cases on this like Slab Murphy -v- Times Newspapers.

If someone said that Haddockman was a kiddie fiddler or some other defamatory statement, how would I be able to prove that I am the person behind the name?

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

I thought it had to be a natural person, that companies could not sue...? That is why I thought that an online persona could not be defamed.

MrP

Section 12 of the Act:

12.— The provisions of this Act apply to a body corporate as they apply to a natural person, and a body corporate may bring a defamation action under this Act in respect of a statement concerning it that it claims is defamatory whether or not it has incurred or is likely to incur financial loss as a result of the publication of that statement.

Amazotheamazing

drkpower wrote: »

I dont see why an alias cant be defamed. If for instance, when Stephen King was writing as Richard Bachman (and lets assume for the moment, noone knew he was writing as Richard Bachman), I cant see why SK would have been precluded from suing someone who wrote defamtory material about RB.

The second point is whether the alias has actually developed any kind of reputation capable of being defamed; the answer is of course, yes, when it comes to RB, but doubtful, but not impossible, in the case of most people's online aliases.

How would you show an online reputation had reached the point where it was capable of being defamed in itself. The entire point (or was) of adopting an online name is anonymity, I'm wondering where the point of real life loss would kick in.

Amazotheamazing

Robbo wrote: »

Defamation Act 2009, S.6(3): "A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reason-ably be understood as referring to him or her."

I presume as well there's no need to forget previous cases on this like Slab Murphy -v- Times Newspapers.

Again, that was a name that most people knew who it related to, I'm trying to work out what applies when no one knows who the name relates to.

Iirc, you've had that name (Robbo) since the old sin boards in NUI, Galway, you've placed a fair bit of time into developing the online persona, but I don't know who you are in real life. Do you have enough interest in your online name to sue in it's right for defamation?

Tom Young

It's very easily remedied. DP Act application to boards.ie seek name of user. Then proceedings can commence. Some users are known to others and indeed some alias/avatars are similar or the same to the persons names.

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

Section 12 of the Act:

Ha. I have fallen foul of a difference between Irish and UK law.

MrP

Amazotheamazing

Tom Young wrote: »

It's very easily remedied. DP Act application to boards.ie seek name of user. Then proceedings can commence. Some users are known to others and indeed some alias/avatars are similar or the same to the persons names.

Is that beside the point?

I'm trying to ascertain if a person's online name can be defamed even if it's only limited to online use and no one in the real world knows him/her?

If someone says "Amazotheamazing is a drug dealer" and people on boards start shunning me for being a drug dealer, insult my posts etc can I, as the person behind the alias, sue for having my online rep damaged? The only damage I suffer is online.

Tom Young

Firstly, no it is not beside the point.

Secondly, no I don't believe it can be if the party claiming that their online persona is being defamed have maintained relative or indeed full levels of online anonymity. In saying that there have been some UK cases e.g., nightjack, where unmasking authors has been allowed in re. blogs.

Act definitions: “defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly.

Amazotheamazing

Tom Young wrote: »

Secondly, no I don't believe it can be if the party claiming that their online persona is being defamed have maintained relative or indeed full levels of online anonymity.

Interesting, I tend to agree with you but I wonder will we need to see it played out in Court for confirmation?

Btw, do the owners of boards have any ownership of posts made here? It seems, to me, that an online forum is different to a person who writes a defamatory letter or speaks a defamatory comment to a certain extent. I'm not talking about boards.ie's responsibility as a host of our discussions but as an actual owner of their archives.

drkpower

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I'm trying to ascertain if a person's online name can be defamed even if it's only limited to online use and no one in the real world knows him/her?

If someone says "Amazotheamazing is a drug dealer" and people on boards start shunning me for being a drug dealer, insult my posts etc can I, as the person behind the alias, sue for having my online rep damaged? The only damage I suffer is online.

Just because the damage is only online isnt necessarily fatal to any relief you are entitled to; for instance, if you were a blogger operating under an alias, with a massive following, you have an online reputation (which may or may not be earning you an income) that can be defamed. Of course, it all depends on a case-by-case analysis, but there is no reason that an online alias is legally incapable of being defamed (afaik).

Tom Young

Yes, the content is hosted and therefore is not pre-moderated which most of it is not, then they have a defence in terms of content. Once, the content is not reported for the various reasons listed in the Charters. This was covered off in a Stickied Thread over in After Hours called let's talk. I explained that in full ...

Amazotheamazing

Tom Young wrote: »

Yes, the content is hosted and therefore is not pre-moderated which most of it is not, then they have a defence in terms of content. Once, the content is not reported for the various reasons listed in the Charters. This was covered off in a Stickied Thread over in After Hours called let's talk. I explained that in full ...

I'm not talking about it being pre-moderated or not, the reason I asked is I'm wondering if it lessens my "ownership" of this alias if all that's posted here is owned by someone else and following from that, does that lessen any locus standii I might have to take a case due to defamation of my alias?

Is my alias owned (in part) by boards and therefore they would need to agree I'd been defamed to allow me sue? And if I was to sue, would I end up needing their agreement to sue them?

Robbo

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Iirc, you've had that name (Robbo) since the old sin boards in NUI, Galway, you've placed a fair bit of time into developing the online persona, but I don't know who you are in real life. Do you have enough interest in your online name to sue in it's right for defamation?

Depending on the context, maybe. There's plenty out there who know me in real life from various boards and related events. Whether or not these are "reasonable members of society" per the 2009 Act is another matter entirely....

Ah good old Sin, brings me back. I never did find a buyer for my account in the end.

Ms. Chanandler Bong

Speaking as a lay(wo)man with absolutely no experience of the law in any way, shape, act or form;), the company I work for calls itself "______________ UK & Ireland". They've recently issued us with a company memo telling us that anything defamatory posted online that is available in any way to members of the public, e.g. Facebook (even if your profile is only viewable by a select group), forums, blogs, etc., can be used in court as evidence. Reading the whole thread, ye seem to have established that if something defamatory is posted on here then, regardless of whether it's an avatar, it still counts as defamation. So the crux of the argument seems to be how (or whether) to prove that a specific avatar that's been defamed is you? Or am I reading the whole thing wrong?:o
Going back to my curious lurking...

FreudianSlippers

catreyn wrote: »

Speaking as a lay(wo)man with absolutely no experience of the law in any way, shape, act or form;), the company I work for calls itself "______________ UK & Ireland". They've recently issued us with a company memo telling us that anything defamatory posted online that is available in any way to members of the public, e.g. Facebook (even if your profile is only viewable by a select group), forums, blogs, etc., can be used in court as evidence. Reading the whole thread, ye seem to have established that if something defamatory is posted on here then, regardless of whether it's an avatar, it still counts as defamation. So the crux of the argument seems to be how (or whether) to prove that a specific avatar that's been defamed is you? Or am I reading the whole thing wrong?:o
Going back to my curious lurking...

The question seems to be whether the content is pre-moderated or not. That is, would boards.ie be responsible if I said x company is not paying taxes?
As far as facebook, it would be considered publication to a third party regardless of whether you're on limited profile or not.
Would facebook corp. be liable? The answer seems to be probably not since the content posted is not pre-moderated.

I think the other question that arose here is if someone ways OisinT is an awful [insert my job here], can I sue for defamation - and if so, how do I prove that the other people knew my avatar was me (besides that it is essentially my name :P)

Hope I'm not misinterpreting the comments/questions of the previous posters. I know quite a bit about regular defamation, but the whole online forum defamation thing is new to me.

OisinT

OisinT wrote: »

As far as facebook, it would be considered publication to a third party regardless of whether you're on limited profile or not.
Would facebook corp. be liable? The answer seems to be probably not since the content posted is not pre-moderated.

Is there any moderation on Facebook?

If a defamatory statement was published on Facebook and Facebook Corp. were informed of it but did not take immediate action they'd still be liable. A lack of pre-moderation can only be a defence if you immediately remedy the situation upon becoming aware of it.

Does Facebook have a facility for notifying and moderating content?

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any moderation on Facebook?

If a defamatory statement was published on Facebook and Facebook Corp. were informed of it but did not take immediate action they'd still be liable. A lack of pre-moderation can only be a defence if you immediately remedy the situation upon becoming aware of it.

Does Facebook have a facility for notifying and moderating content?

I don't believe so, no.

EDIT: Actually it looks like you can report photos for breach of TOS and profiles as a whole for breach of TOS (advertising, etc) but you can't seem to report individual posts or status updates.

Our man in Havana

Reoprting anything on facebook is a waste of time. They never action reports.

I wonder how they feel so safe in allowing what is a free for all.

OisinT

OisinT wrote: »

I don't believe so, no.

EDIT: Actually it looks like you can report photos for breach of TOS and profiles as a whole for breach of TOS (advertising, etc) but you can't seem to report individual posts or status updates.

Haddockman wrote: »

Reoprting anything on facebook is a waste of time. They never action reports.

I wonder how they feel so safe in allowing what is a free for all.

I thought as much. They have an Irish base now as well don't they? It seems odd that they would be so cavalier with something like this.

Tom Young

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any moderation on Facebook?

If a defamatory statement was published on Facebook and Facebook Corp. were informed of it but did not take immediate action they'd still be liable. A lack of pre-moderation can only be a defence if you immediately remedy the situation upon becoming aware of it.

Does Facebook have a facility for notifying and moderating content?

UK Facebook case.


Applause Store Productions Ltd v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 QBD

The Claimants alleged that the defendant set up a Facebook profile in the name of the second claimant containing personal information about him and a group page alleging tha the claimant owed a substantial amount of money and were not to be trusted in the financial conduct of their business. The defendant, a former friend of the second claimant before they fell out, admitted using Facebook but denied that he was responsible for setting up the profile and group. At trial Richard Parkes Q.C. (sitting as a deputy High Court judge without a jury) held that the defendant was responsible for setting up and, hence publishing the profile and the group page. The extent of the publication was estimated at less that 100 people. The Deputy Judge awarded the second claimant, UK Stg 15,000 damages for libel: and the first claimant UK Stg 5,000 damages for libel. He also awarded the second claimant UK Stg 2,000 for breaches of his privacy.

Tom Young

Tom Young wrote: »

UK Facebook case.


Applause Store Productions Ltd v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 QBD

The Claimants alleged that the defendant set up a Facebook profile in the name of the second claimant containing personal information about him and a group page alleging tha the claimant owed a substantial amount of money and were not to be trusted in the financial conduct of their business. The defendant, a former friend of the second claimant before they fell out, admitted using Facebook but denied that he was responsible for setting up the profile and group. At trial Richard Parkes Q.C. (sitting as a deputy High Court judge without a jury) held that the defendant was responsible for setting up and, hence publishing the profile and the group page. The extent of the publication was estimated at less that 100 people. The Deputy Judge awarded the second claimant, UK Stg 15,000 damages for libel: and the first claimant UK Stg 5,000 damages for libel. He also awarded the second claimant UK Stg 2,000 for breaches of his privacy.

In that case the entire page was set up with a dishonest purpose and was published with such intent.

From a very quick scan of the case it doesn't appear that the claimants sued Facebook itself. That's more the line I was going down.

Tom Young

There was a non party discovery order. See para 10:

It was on 4th July 2007 that Mr Firsht, who was with his twin brother Simon and his
brother’s girlfriend at the time, discovered the false profile and group page. His first
reaction was: why would anyone do this and who could it be? The Defendant’s name
was one that came up, but only to be dismissed, since Mr Firsht saw no reason why
Grant Raphael would hold a grudge against him, even though they had fallen out
some years before. Facebook took down the offending material on Mr Firsht’s request
on 6th July 2007, and on 1st August 2007 his solicitors, Olswang, obtained a Norwich
Pharmacal order against Facebook Inc for disclosure of the registration data provided
by the user responsible for creating the false material, including e-mail addresses, and
the IP addresses of all computers used to access Facebook by the owner of those
email addresses. Facebook Inc provided Olswang with evidence, which is not
contested, showing that the profile was created on a computer using an IP address
which is accepted to have been the Defendant’s, on the evening of 19th June 2007, and
that the group was created on a computer using that same IP address on the afternoon
of 20th June 2007. All the relevant activity was conducted from that IP address using
three Facebook user identity numbers, one of which was the Defendant’s, one of
which was that of his girlfriend, Asa Hallonqvist, and the third of which was in the
name of Mathew Firsht. There is no dispute that there were only two computers which
could have used that IP address: they were the Defendant’s desktop computer, which
was kept in the study of his flat, and the laptop computer belonging to his girlfriend
Asa Hallonqvist, which the Defendant often used. Both computers used a wireless
router to connect to the internet, and the router employed the IP address which
Facebook disclosed.

Ms. Chanandler Bong

OisinT wrote: »

The question seems to be whether the content is pre-moderated or not. That is, would boards.ie be responsible if I said x company is not paying taxes?
As far as facebook, it would be considered publication to a third party regardless of whether you're on limited profile or not.
Would facebook corp. be liable? The answer seems to be probably not since the content posted is not pre-moderated.

Our memo said we were responsible for what we posted online in much the same way that we are responsible for what we say to people every day. I'd take that to mean my employers would sue me, not Facebook/boards/etc as it was my post/comment/whatever but would contact them to get the post/comment/whatever to use in court against me.

DeVore

very interesting discussion.... a few points from our point of view:

1. I would sue the knickers off someone who started a genuine attempt to defame "DeVore". I probably top the poll of people who could claim their online persona is identifiably them though (Hell, I have mates who call me DeV in real life and I get mail addressed to DeVore Murphy... no sh*t!

2. 10 years ago this was all fields! We had no law and so Boards took the view that we had a duty of care and we put in moderators. Finally the law (and people's awareness) seem to be coming around to our point of view.

3. I love when people say "I just cant believe boards would be responsible". I just want to grab them and shout "CREDULITY IS NOT FREAKIN' REQUIRED!!!". "Surely" seems to be the dumbest word in the legal lexicon as its usually followed by what THAT person thinks the law should be rather than what it actually is. These two things are usually a million miles apart but i guess im preaching to the choir here

4. We've had several requests for the identity behind usernames... when those are well formed, we comply within 24 hours of them.

This whole area is a giant mess but it seems to be correcting itself, mostly thanks to Europe.

DeV.

Amazotheamazing

DeVore wrote: »

very interesting discussion.... a few points from our point of view:

1. I would sue the knickers off someone who started a genuine attempt to defame "DeVore". I probably top the poll of people who could claim their online persona is identifiably them though (Hell, I have mates who call me DeV in real life and I get mail addressed to DeVore Murphy... no sh*t!

Again though, your online identity is tied to who you are in "real" life, the situation I'm thinking of is where your online identity is only known and tied to you online.

Also, does boards.ie actually own our individual usernames? Where does the intellectual property begin and end with ownership of username, after all, you get to decide if we get it or keep it, you can delete it, etc.

If you wanted, could you take the name "Amazotheamazing" (an awful name) and give it to someone who was willing to pay to use it?

It follows from this that if you own the name, can I sue under it if I don't own it? What's my locus standi?

FreudianSlippers

My point on the user name issue is that defamation has to do what it says on the tin i.e. defame. It would require some aspect of the subject's reputation being lowered in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
That would mean that you would have to show (IMO) that your internet user name had some sort of reputation.

Then the question becomes "who are right-thinking members of society?"
Are they other internet users? (if so, what about the example that a criminal cannot be defamed if his reputation is lowered in his gang?)
Are they members of general society? (this would be the case of DeV being known outside of the online community as his internet persona)

Tom Young

The Jury before whom the case will be litigated unless the litigants opt for a non-jury trial. Hard luck!

NoQuarter

Damn you OisinT!!!

This topic just came up in my tort FE1 and all i could think about was that i never read the thead!!! :mad::mad:

FreudianSlippers

NoQuarter wrote: »

Damn you OisinT!!!

This topic just came up in my tort FE1 and all i could think about was that i never read the thead!!! :mad::mad:

:eek:

FreudianSlippers

Been thinking about this again recently and I'm not sure I can marry the judgment in Mulvaney & Others -v- Betfair [2009] IEHC 133 to the Defamation Act 2009.

It's the innocent publication part:

(2) A person shall not, for the purposes of this section, be considered
to be the author, editor or publisher of a statement if—
(a) in relation to printed material containing the statement,
he or she was responsible for the printing, production,
distribution or selling only of the printed material,
(b) in relation to a film or sound recording containing the
statement, he or she was responsible for the processing,
copying, distribution, exhibition or selling only of the film
or sound recording,
(c) in relation to any electronic medium on which the statement
is recorded or stored, he or she was responsible for
the processing, copying, distribution or selling only of the
electronic medium or was responsible for the operationor provision only of any equipment, system or service by
means of which the statement would be capable of being
retrieved, copied, distributed or made available.

Is it the intent of the Act that defence should not be available to the “operators of, or providers of access to, a communication system”, rather they should be left to their E-Commerce Directive defences?

If that's the case, then if the content is pre-moderated and thought to be ok by the moderators, then do they not have a defence of attempting to pre-moderate within the confines of the legislation?

DeVore

Actually that doesnt make any sense at all.... consider this part:

(2) A person shall not, for the purposes of this section, be considered
to be the author, editor or publisher of a statement if—
(a) in relation to printed material containing the statement,
he or she was responsible for the printing, production,
distribution or selling only of the printed material

Which can (in relation to print) be distilled down to:

(2) A person shall not be considered the publisher of a statement if
he or she was responsible for the printing, production,
distribution or selling only of the printed material

I think someone should inform Fleet Street, because that seems like a big get-out-of-jail-free loophole...

Or am I missing something?