Would this be defamatory ?

Motorist

If I wrote an anonymous post on an internet forum and said for example "My best friend has red hair, drives a green van and is a thief" but later my identity became known and therefore it became possible to identify the person I was talking about, would it be defamation? Just wondering if the fact that it was originally intended as an anonymous posting would have any bearing on whether or not it would be defamatory.

ResearchWill

Motorist wrote: »

If I wrote an anonymous post on an internet forum and said for example "My best friend has red hair, drives a green van and is a thief" but later my identity became known and therefore it became possible to identify the person I was talking about, would it be defamation? Just wondering if the fact that it was originally intended as an anonymous posting would have any bearing on whether or not it would be defamatory.

Which of those things is untrue, apart from the truth being a defence to defamation. The fact that you intended the posting to be anonymous would be of no issue. If the statement is defamation, it's defamation. The defamation Act 2009, sets out the law on the issue.

johnnyskeleton

Theres nothing wrong with having red hair!

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Interesting question to ask would be whether anonymous people on an internet forum would be considered "reasonable members of society" - most likely it would be a yes, but I'm unsure.
Another thing - if only the person who you were talking about found out who the post was referring to it is not defamation - see s.6(3) of the 2009 act.
EDIT: One final thing, you could claim that someone else is your best friend and not whoever the post mentioned, if you could give reasonable evidence of this you might get off the hook.

ResearchWill

Bodie Shallow Sunfish wrote: »

Interesting question to ask would be whether anonymous people on an internet forum would be considered "reasonable members of society" - most likely it would be a yes, but I'm unsure.
Another thing - if only the person who you were talking about found out who the post was referring to it is not defamation - see s.6(3) of the 2009 act.
EDIT: One final thing, you could claim that someone else is your best friend and not whoever the post mentioned, if you could give reasonable evidence of this you might get off the hook.

The reasonable person test, is not for the person who publishes the statement, it is the test to be applied to any third party receiving the statement. It matters not if the people receiving the statement are also reasonable, the test as per the act is "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;"

Also I assume you mean ss 6 (4) not (3), but that defence is intended where the only possible publication is to the person claiming they have been defamed, for example by sending a sealed letter marked private to that person. Publication on the Internet would not normally satisfy, that defence.

Grolschevik

On a vaguely related note:

I, the anonymous person calling myself Grolschevik on this forum (and occasionally when texting radio programmes), try as far as possible to be rational, tolerant and intelligent in my contributions to the fora I visit on boards. I would like to think that I have, or have the potential to have, such a reputation among the people I interact with on boards. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only Grolschevik out there. Some of my (real-life) friends know the username to be the one I use.

Now say that someone else registers the username "Grolschevik" on a site I don't use, say politics.ie, and posts crude, racist, sexist rants.

Can the reputation of a carefully cultivated quasi-anonymous internet persona be defamed or damaged?

BrianD

Grolschevik wrote: »

On a vaguely related note:

I, the anonymous person calling myself Grolschevik on this forum (and occasionally when texting radio programmes), try as far as possible to be rational, tolerant and intelligent in my contributions to the fora I visit on boards. I would like to think that I have, or have the potential to have, such a reputation among the people I interact with on boards. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only Grolschevik out there. Some of my (real-life) friends know the username to be the one I use.

Now say that someone else registers the username "Grolschevik" on a site I don't use, say politics.ie, and posts crude, racist, sexist rants.

Can the reputation of a carefully cultivated quasi-anonymous internet persona be defamed or damaged?

Wouldn't the same apply in the real world with persons of the same name? For example, I used to keep Google Alerts for prominent members of staff for a company I worked for. One of the staff had the same name with a woman who murdered a policeman in the UK and seemed to be not a particularly nice person.

Grolschevik

BrianD wrote: »

Wouldn't the same apply in the real world with persons of the same name? For example, I used to keep Google Alerts for prominent members of staff for a company I worked for. One of the staff had the same name with a woman who murdered a policeman in the UK and seemed to be not a particularly nice person.

True, but I suppose the point could be made that very many usernames are borderline unique. Still, I suppose the same would apply. That said, if I read posts by a "Freudianslippers" or a "Johnnyskeleton" on a different forum, I'd tend to assume that they were the same ones from here.

pirelli

Motorist wrote: »

If I wrote an anonymous post on an internet forum and said for example "My best friend has red hair, drives a green van and is a thief" but later my identity became known and therefore it became possible to identify the person I was talking about, would it be defamation? Just wondering if the fact that it was originally intended as an anonymous posting would have any bearing on whether or not it would be defamatory.

Even if it was intended as anonymous it would still be defamatory if people could identify whom it was you were referring to.

I suppose should certain acquaintances eventually discover who you post as. Your acquaintances might very well know who you referring too as your best friend and some people will certainly know who you are and who your best friend might be. Then throw in the identifiers such Green van and red hair and possible rumour of dishonesty and you have just published some nasty gossip.

Anyway it's his decision to sue you..it is an unfair situation to place him in, particularly in light of the SOPA.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

ResearchWill wrote: »

The reasonable person test, is not for the person who publishes the statement, it is the test to be applied to any third party receiving the statement. It matters not if the people receiving the statement are also reasonable, the test as per the act is "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;"

Also I assume you mean ss 6 (4) not (3), but that defence is intended where the only possible publication is to the person claiming they have been defamed, for example by sending a sealed letter marked private to that person. Publication on the Internet would not normally satisfy, that defence.

I know what the reasonable person test is, I was referring to the people reading it - whether it could be determined if anonymous internet users could be found to be 'reasonable' and I was fairly sure the test was subjective but, if you say so...

Also no, I meant s. 6(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her.
I said if the only person who can work out who the post was referring to was that person (and the author obviously), it's not defamation.

pirelli

Bodie Shallow Sunfish wrote: »

I know what the reasonable person test is, I was referring to the people reading it - whether it could be determined if anonymous internet users could be found to be 'reasonable' and I was fairly sure the test was subjective but, if you say so...

Also no, I meant s. 6(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her.
I said if the only person who can work out who the post was referring to was that person (and the author obviously), it's not defamation.

Reasearchwill already answered the 'reasonable person' twice Munkymanmatt and it's quite clear the reasonableness of a newspaper reader is no different from the reasonableness of an digital newspaper reader.

Working on the information the OP has given and the fact he has revealed his identity then if the person defamed was able to work out the post was referring to himself then it is very likely people that know the OP might also. Although there might very well be another friend of the OP with red hair and whom drives a green van.. I am beginning to see where your coming from now Munkymanmatt... i think the only way to solve this is if a past acquaintance with red hair with a green van robs the OP. Then no casual friends with red hair and a green van can sue the OP.

I am not sure best friend is a sufficient connection. A best friend can be reduced to casual acquaintance or matey very quickly partiucarly if the chappy sues you.
If the person defamed was referenced as a brother,cousin,employer; work colleague or business partner of the 'now identifiable' OP then that most certainly would make for watertight case of defamation.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

pirelli wrote: »

Reasearchwill already answered the 'reasonable person' twice Munkymanmatt and it's quite clear the reasonableness of a newspaper reader is no different from the reasonableness of an digital newspaper reader.

Working on the information the OP has given and the fact he has revealed his identity then if the person defamed was able to work out the post was referring to himself then it is very likely people that know the OP might also. Although there might very well be another friend of the OP with red hair and whom drives a green van.. I am beginning to see where your coming from now Munkymanmatt... i think the only way to solve this is if a past acquaintance with red hair with a green van robs the OP. Then no casual friends with red hair and a green van can sue the OP.

I am not sure best friend is a sufficient connection. A best friend can be reduced to casual acquaintance or matey very quickly partiucarly if the chappy sues you.
If the person defamed was referenced as a brother,cousin,employer; work colleague or business partner of the 'now identifiable' OP then that most certainly would make for watertight case of defamation.

Ah, but it's not a newspaper! It's an internet forum and depending on the site one could very well make a solid argument that it's readers would not satisfy the 'reasonable man' requirement - e.g. if this had been posted up on a board such as 4chan I wouldn't have too much difficulty establishing that the site's users would not satisfy the test!

And the thing is also he hasn't really elaborated on the identification bit - who has identified him/did he identify himself in the post etc.

pirelli

Bodie Shallow Sunfish wrote: »

Ah, but it's not a newspaper! It's an internet forum and depending on the site one could very well make a solid argument that it's readers would not satisfy the 'reasonable man' requirement - e.g. if this had been posted up on a board such as 4chan I wouldn't have too much difficulty establishing that the site's users would not satisfy the test!

And the thing is also he hasn't really elaborated on the identification bit - who has identified him/did he identify himself in the post etc.

A solid argument! How?

Are you arguing that the sun newspaper readers have less reasonableness than say Irish times newspaper readers or that Readers of the digital version of the Irish times online have less reasonableness than our original readers of the bricks and mortar irish times 'paper'.

Or that irish times readers of the digital online version that also browse General discussion forums are unreasonable and whilst those that confine themselves to only reading the digital online content of the irish times are reasonable.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

pirelli wrote: »

A solid argument! How?

Are you arguing that the sun newspaper readers have less reasonableness than say Irish times newspaper readers or that Readers of the digital version of the Irish times online have less reasonableness than our original readers of the bricks and mortar irish times 'paper'.

Or that irish times readers of the digital online version that also browse General discussion forums are unreasonable and whilst those that confine themselves to only reading the digital online content of the irish times are reasonable.

I'm saying a certain few websites would attract users of a less reasonable character than others, a prominent example being 4chan.org which is renowned for its users' 'unreasonableness', we'll say. I have little doubt that if a judge was presented with a sample of content put up on that website he would declare its users unfit to meet the 'reasonable' test's requirements.

An internet forum isn't a digital newspaper, which is the comparison you are making, and the majority of writers on a forum aren't journalists, there's a big difference between the two sites.

Grolschevik

Bodie Shallow Sunfish wrote: »

I'm saying a certain few websites would attract users of a less reasonable character than others, a prominent example being 4chan.org which is renowned for its users' 'unreasonableness',

So what about AH, Conspiracy Theories, or Politics on here? I don't go into any of them if I can help it...

pirelli

Bodie Shallow Sunfish wrote: »

I'm saying a certain few websites would attract users of a less reasonable character than others, a prominent example being 4chan.org which is renowned for its users' 'unreasonableness', we'll say. I have little doubt that if a judge was presented with a sample of content put up on that website he would declare its users unfit to meet the 'reasonable' test's requirements.

An internet forum isn't a digital newspaper, which is the comparison you are making, and the majority of writers on a forum aren't journalists, there's a big difference between the two sites.

This is classic

So if I was to place a notice in the roughest pub next to Brixton prison that was frequented by London's gangster's and that notice claimed you were a 'rat' that reported an offence to the authorities.

I also posted the same notice in the Shelbourne hotel. Which notice would be defamatory in your opinion.

I reference the Byrne Case v Golf club.