Internet Defamation

slum dog

Hi,
I was just wondering what the laws are on internet defamation. I read somewhere that if you discuss a person on a public internet forum such as boards, and whether the comments about that person are true or false, it can be considered an invasion of privacy and defamation? Is this true?

NUTLEY BOY

Write a defamatory statement on an internet board and you have published it . The trouble starts then

Writing defamatory comments on discussion boards, treads or blogs attracts no immunity whatsoever. It is not like Dail Eireann where they can say what they like........

slum dog

does it even have to be insulting? for example, just say the person wasnt even famous and i said to you that i saw joe bloggs from 123 college green, town, co. dublin mowing his lawn today and it looks like he did a very bad job. would this be defamotory not taking into account whether he did a good job or not or is it just an invasion of privacy?

vicwatson

You can write something defamatory if you like as long as the website is hosted in USA as they have freedom of speech in their constitution, take all the lies and bull**** on rate my solicitor, people tell utter untruths about individual solicitors on here an it cannot be closed down nor can you sue the wierdo that owns the site as it hosted in the good ole USA !

Defamation is the lowering of someone's reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society.

The statement must be untrue. Any person can be defamed, fame, as it were, has nothing to do with it.

Wolfe Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

Defamation is the lowering of someone's reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society.

The statement must be untrue. Any person can be defamed, fame, as it were, has nothing to do with it.

Or at least you can't PROVE it to be true.

amen

inal

You can write something defamatory if you like as long as the website is hosted in USA as they have freedom of speech in their constitution, take all the lies and bull**** on rate my solicitor, people tell utter untruths about individual solicitors on here an it cannot be closed down nor can you sue the wierdo that owns the site as it hosted in the good ole USA

but I don't think that is true. If you have a .ie domain you may have an Irish registered company and so could be pursued in Ireland.

Victor

Unless someone is a professional gardener, it is hard to see how saying they cut their grass badly is defamation.

vicwatson wrote: »

You can write something defamatory if you like as long as the website is hosted in USA as they have freedom of speech in their constitution, take all the lies and bull**** on rate my solicitor, people tell utter untruths about individual solicitors on here an it cannot be closed down nor can you sue the wierdo that owns the site as it hosted in the good ole USA !

No, if both parties are here, and judge will hear the case here.

jaybeeveedub

cutting grass badly even if he were a professional gardener would more than likely come under the defence of "honest opinion"

check out cearta.ie Eoin O'Dell covers this ground in a good few of his blogs....

Victor

jaybeeveedub wrote: »

cutting grass badly even if he were a professional gardener would more than likely come under the defence of "honest opinion"

Only if true.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

No, if both parties are here, and jud ge will hear the case here.

Australian Supreme Court has held that wherever a defamation is read on the internet publication occurs in that country for the purposes of grounding an action so, technically, you could have numerous actions in numerous countries for an internet defamation. I cant' find a copy of that case online but if I come across it I'll post it up.

Since each new publication gives rise to a new cause of action the domain name wouldn't matter so long as an Irish reader to whom the remark refers could read the information here.

jaybeeveedub

Victor wrote: »

Only if true.

how is the wellness of cutting grass verifiable? I know wellness isn't a word btw

but opinion only has to be based on an honestly held opinion in regard of some allegations which are true

Victor

jaybeeveedub wrote: »

how is the wellness of cutting grass verifiable? I know wellness isn't a word btw

but opinion only has to be based on an honestly held opinion in regard of some allegations which are true

I can't tell you what the line is, but there will be some grass that in any reasonable person's opinion is or isn't.

Deleted User wrote: »

Australian Supreme Court has held that wherever a defamation is read on the internet publication occurs in that country for the purposes of grounding an action so, technically, you could have numerous actions in numerous countries for an internet defamation. I cant' find a copy of that case online but if I come across it I'll post it up.

Since each new publication gives rise to a new cause of action the domain name wouldn't matter so long as an Irish reader to whom the remark refers could read the information here.

UK precedent that the defamed person must have a base of operations / reputation in the UK to bring a case.

jaybeeveedub

Victor wrote: »

I can't tell you what the line is, but there will be some grass that in any reasonable person's opinion is or isn't.

That's the point of honest opinion isn't it... It's supposed to be the one defence with a subjective element to it. Thus you may not think he did a bad job of cutting the grass, but let's say "all the stripes aren't of equal width" is a separate allegation which can be verified. It doesn't matter to you, but to me who has written a review of his gardening capabilities here on boards, it does. So my honest opinion will be assessed by the court...

FreudianSlippers

It's useful to consider the Act. It's all there in black and white:

18.— (1) Subject to section 17 , it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought would, if it had been made immediately before the commencement of this section, have been considered under the law (other than the Act of 1961) in force immediately before such commencement as having been made on an occasion of qualified privilege.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it shall, subject to section 19 , be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that—

(a) the statement was published to a person or persons who—

(i) had a duty to receive, or interest in receiving, the information contained in the statement, or

(ii) the defendant believed upon reasonable grounds that the said person or persons had such a duty or interest, and

(b) the defendant had a corresponding duty to communicate, or interest in communicating, the information to such person or persons.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement to which the action relates is—

(a) a statement to which Part 1 of Schedule 1 applies,

(b) contained in a report, copy, extract or summary referred to in that Part, or

(c) contained in a determination referred to in that Part.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement to which the action relates is contained in a report, copy or summary referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 1 , unless it is proved that the defendant was requested by the plaintiff to publish in the same medium of communication in which he or she published the statement concerned, a reasonable statement by way of explanation or a contradiction, and has refused or failed to do so or has done so in a manner that is not adequate or reasonable having regard to all of the circumstances.

(5) Nothing in subsection (3) shall be construed as—

(a) protecting the publication of any statement the publication of which is prohibited by law, or of any statement that is not of public concern and the publication of which is not for the public benefit, or

(b) limiting or abridging any privilege subsisting apart from subsection (3).

(6) A defence under this section shall be known, and is referred to in this Act, as the “ defence of qualified privilege ”.

(7) In this section—

“duty” means a legal, moral or social duty;

“interest” means a legal, moral or social interest.

20.— (1) It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as the “defence of honest opinion”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an opinion is honestly held, for the purposes of this section, if—

(a) at the time of the publication of the statement, the defendant believed in the truth of the opinion or, where the defendant is not the author of the opinion, believed that the author believed it to be true,

(b) (i) the opinion was based on allegations of fact—

(I) specified in the statement containing the opinion, or

(II) referred to in that statement, that were known, or might reasonably be expected to have been known, by the persons to whom the statement was published,

or

(ii) the opinion was based on allegations of fact to which—

(I) the defence of absolute privilege, or

(II) the defence of qualified privilege,

would apply if a defamation action were brought in respect of such allegations,

and

(c) the opinion related to a matter of public interest.

(3) (a) The defence of honest opinion shall fail, if the opinion concerned is based on allegations of fact to which subsection (2) (b) (i) applies, unless—

(i) the defendant proves the truth of those allegations, or

(ii) where the defendant does not prove the truth of all of those allegations, the opinion is honestly held having regard to the allegations of fact the truth of which are proved.

(b) The defence of honest opinion shall fail, if the opinion concerned is based on allegations of fact to which subsection (2) (b) (ii) applies, unless—

(i) the defendant proves the truth of those allegations, or

(ii) where the defendant does not prove the truth of those allegations—

(I) the opinion could not reasonably be understood as implying that those allegations were true, and

(II) at the time of the publication of the opinion, the defendant did not know or could not reasonably have been expected to know that those allegations were untrue.

(4) Where a defamatory statement consisting of an opinion is published jointly by a person (“ first-mentioned person ”) and another person (“ joint publisher ”), the first-mentioned person shall not fail in pleading the defence of honest opinion in a subsequent defamation action brought in respect of that statement by reason only of that opinion not being honestly held by the joint publisher, unless the first-mentioned person was at the time of publication vicariously liable for the acts or omissions, from which the cause of action in respect of that statement accrued, of the joint publisher.

21.— The matters to which the court in a defamation action shall have regard, for the purposes of distinguishing between a statement consisting of allegations of fact and a statement consisting of opinion, shall include the following:

(a) the extent to which the statement is capable of being proved;

(b) 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; and

(c) the words used in the statement and the extent to which the statement was subject to a qualification or a disclaimer or was accompanied by cautionary words.

jaybeeveedub

I suppose qualified privilege could apply if it was a response to someone asking was he a good gardener, but I would imagine it would be hard to establish a duty of care....

FreudianSlippers

jaybeeveedub wrote: »

I suppose qualified privilege could apply if it was a response to someone asking was he a good gardener, but I would imagine it would be hard to establish a duty of care....

Do you mean the duty to receive/communicate?
Wouldn't really be that hard.

Person A: "is gardener x any good?"
Person B: "nope, he is blablabla"

They have established a basic duty to communicate/receive this information.

With the gardener example, I'd find it very difficult to see how it couldn't be honest opinion 99% of the time. I mean unless they said something really defamatory and untrue about him, like he stole a lawnmower or something lol.

jaybeeveedub

sorry that was a reply to the previous post which has included the Statute for Qualified Privilege and I didn't want to quote the whole thing...

I was saying a a stretch you could plead qualified privelege.... not suggesting it!!

NewGrad

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307765426.html

This article describes how the web site rateyoursolicitor.com was snooped on and the IP address of a user/poster found and then a court order was used to get Eircom to release the name and physical address for the IP address.

I think we all agree that posting defaming comments on a website is not on.

But this technique could be used to track any poster on any forum and if you have the right connections to find there physical location. Very worrying if someone decides to stalk a chatroom/forum user!

However I am curious if some laws have been broken using this technique:
the site is hosted in the US and their federal laws on internet tracking are very strict. Not illegal to track, but you must declare you are doing so first by way of disclaimer. These solicitors may be getting a call from the FBI.

RandolphEsq

jaybeeveedub wrote: »

how is the wellness of cutting grass verifiable? I know wellness isn't a word btw

but opinion only has to be based on an honestly held opinion in regard of some allegations which are true

This is where it should be necessary to have a distinction between a view and an opinion. The road they are presently on is not sufficient to run a progressive legal structure in relation to defamation.

NewGrad wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307765426.html

This article describes how the web site rateyoursolicitor.com was snooped on and the IP address of a user/poster found and then a court order was used to get Eircom to release the name and physical address for the IP address.

I think we all agree that posting defaming comments on a website is not on.

But this technique could be used to track any poster on any forum and if you have the right connections to find there physical location. Very worrying if someone decides to stalk a chatroom/forum user!

However I am curious if some laws have been broken using this technique:
the site is hosted in the US and their federal laws on internet tracking are very strict. Not illegal to track, but you must declare you are doing so first by way of disclaimer. These solicitors may be getting a call from the FBI.

Okay, so? The internet is a huge part of society nowadays, so 'traditional' non-regulation views of 'The State can't monitor my internet actions for whatever reason' are so simplistic, ignorant and outdated. Internet crime is a huge problem and legislation needs to evolve as fast as the crimes are. There is a common skeptics' view of internet activity monitoring as being necessarily for the common bad. But the internet has been allowed to blossom and flourish with minimal regulation. As a result we have internet bullying which wasn't taken very seriously and lead to teenage suicides, we have had intellectual copyright theft being justified in the minds of the scumbag offenders, we had credit card fraudsters robbing people of their money, we have keyboard warriors spouting off defamatory, untrue, uneducated bullsh1t (ratemysolicitor.com the prime example, {SNIP} Irony.) about people but not being held accountable for what they say; that is an extremely harmful and dangerous thing to let slide. The internet should not be anonymous, people need to be held accountable for their actions on the internet if their actions are ending up being detrimental for the good of society.

NewGrad

@RandolphEsq
You appear to be involved in the legal community and you were making some effort to formulate an argument I was actually reading, until I came to your remark:

"ratemysolicitor.com the prime example, {SNIP} Irony."

Making comments on someones mental/physical capacity in this way shows signs of a superior attitude. Perhaps you feel this person does not deserve to have his say?


You have made a list of issues that arise with the internet and yes there are problems. However mechanisms exist to find criminal suspects where there have been alleged offenses. These mechanisms belong properly in the hands of law enforcement who need just cause to initiate investigation. The use of "web beacons" without consent by non law enforcement personnel on a US located server may have breach several US wiretap laws and will need to be looked at.

Any technology can be used for good or evil. Facebook and Twitter were used by protesters in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya to help in the organization of revolt. The anonymous nature of the internet helped their cause otherwise they would have been killed if they could have been tracked quickly. The response of the dictators was to try to shut the internet down in those countries and force technology companies to hunt anyone they felt was spreading a message they did not like. Big Brother at its worst.

I believe most of us agree the free nature of the internet has been positive for humanity. Balances and checks are important but only with proper cause and not at the expense of freedom of expression and liberty.

NewGrad

Thanks to FreudianSlippers for removing the contentious comment which was at the {SNIP} placeholder.

For the record, all though the comment is removed from current copy of the page on Boards.ie, it has already been archived and thus permanently available by many web services and search engines.


As with all internet communication, such comments don't ever go away. All e-mails, web page requests, forum posts, etc pass through several servers/computers on the web and are archived automatically by numerous web services.