New Webmasters > Featured > Libel, Slander and the Internet

Libel, Slander and the Internet

By corbyboy ⋅ July 18, 2008 ⋅ Post a comment

Avoid offending people on your website

In the days of simple access to the Internet, defamation of people and companies can prove a significant problem. This problem can often be exasparated by the apparent anonymous nature of the Internet. This assumption is very rarely true, in fact very little of the Internet is truly anonymous. This can lead to people making false accusations, exagerting claims, and just plain lying in the hope that they will not be discovered.

Definitions

Defamation is the making of a statement that makes a false claim which damages the reputation of an individual or a company. When it is in a “transitionary” form such as speech it is referred to as slander. When it is in a “fixed” form such as written or in a photograph is is libel. Due to the nature of how information is published, libel is the more common form on the Internet.

Where Does Libel Take Place on the Internet?

Anywhere where statements or images are “published” is under scrutiny in terms of libel. This includes email, newsgroups, mailing lists, and the World Wide Web itself.

The speed and simplicity of the Internet allows messages to be published instantaneously:

Email can be sent in a few keystrokes and forwarded to many other with the click of a mouse.
Messages in newsgroups that are replied to will often go to everybody in the group rather than just the author of the original message.
Message boards and Internet newsgroups are very rarely anonymous, despite how they may look.

All of these features of the Internet make it remarkable easy to publish statements about people and organisations without really thinking through what you are saying or checking any facts you have stated. Unfortunately for some, this cannot be used as a defence against libel in itself.

Who Is Responsible for What Is Published?

As with most of the libel law discussed, the specific aspects vary from country to country. With most countries, however, the same people are usually responsible for what is published. Firstly, the author of the statement is responsible for what they have written. Secondly, the owner of the website is responsible for what they are publishing. The ISP or webhost is also responsible for what is published on their servers. Often, the first you will hear about any accusations of libel is an email or letter from your ISP saying that the offending page or message has been removed. They very often play on the safe side and remove the material when asked rather than waiting for the decision of a court.

What Can I Do On My Website?

Anything that is published on your website is your responsibility, even if you did not write it yourself.

Taking a proactive approach is the best way to avoid running into any potential situation where you are accused of defamation. As you will see from the possible defences listed below, simply saying “I didn’t know what was going on as anybody can contribute” is rarely a suitable defence. You should pay particular attention to:

Chat rooms - treat any claims of defamation and harassment seriously. Check the logs and take steps to ban anybody who is caught doing this. You should also make it easy for people to report harassment or abuse. Chat rooms can be particularly problematic as people often (falsely) believe they are anonymous.
Message boards - generally, message boards (or forums) are moderated, but posts are rarely screened before they are published. If a potentially defamatory post is found it should be deleted and steps taken to warn or ban the poster. Most decent message board sofware comes with built in reporting features. Users can “report this post” if it causes offence. Again, make sure you take these reports seriously. If you have been notified of an abusive post and you do not act then you cannot use innocence as a defence.
Product reviews and comments - users who post factual comments are OK. This comes under the fair comment rule. Generally, you can say what you like so long as it is true. As usual, there are exceptions. Take a look at the defences section below. Care should be taken when users start to post their own personal opinions, especially if they are negative. “I bought this product and it broke” is a fair, factual comment. “I bought this product and it broke. The company are lying thieves” is probably defamatory as the user’s opinion is involved. Product reviews should always be monitored and contentious comments should be removed.

The line between free speech and defamation on the Internet is often very narrow so most people tend to go on the side of caution. If you are unsure if what is published is libellous, you need to decide if you are going to remove it or not while you investigate.

Who or What Cannot Be Libelled?

Albert Einstein cannot be libelled

In most countries the dead cannot be libelled. The clearest exception to this is the Philippines. Under their law, the dead can be libelled.

For example, were he still alive and I claimed that Albert Einstein was a thief, I could be prosecuted for libel. If a historian wrote a book claiming the same thing after he had died, there would be no risk of prosecution for libel. There are some exceptions to this however.

After the death of former British Prime Minister William Gladstone, author Peter Wright published accusations in 1927 that he used to sleep with prostitutes. The family of Gladstone publicly called him a liar and so he sued for defamation. When Wright couldn’t prove his accusations about Gladstone in court, his case was thrown out.

Additionally, if false accusations are made about somebody who is dead that affect his estate or surviving family, this can be considered libel.

Another contentious point is accusations made about people who have not yet been proven to be dead. Care must be taken when assuming that somebody is dead just because they have been missing for so long.

Defences Against Libel

There are various different defences that people commonly employ to defend themselves against accusations of libel. Since we are just looking at how libel laws affect Internet publishers, the most useful ones in this situation are listed below.

Truth - in many countries proving a statement to be true will be sufficient defence against an accusation. Usually, the information being revealed must be shown to be in the public interest. This means that publishing something simply because it is true cannot always be guaranteed to be a suitable defence. Again in the Phillipines, truth itself is not a suitable defence.
Good faith - if a statement was made in good faith it may be regarded as suitable defence. However, the belief must be reasonable.
Innocence - similar to good faith, if a defendant acted without knowledge that the statement was made they cannot be held responsible. For example an ISP cannot be held responsible for a message being posted on an unmonitored newsgroup. However, if they are notified and do not act, they cannot use innocence as a defence.

Examples of Libel Action

Keith-Smith v Williams

In 2006 the case of political candidate Michael Keith-Smith established that English libel laws apply to two individuals on the Internet rather than an individual and an ISP or publisher.

After an argument with Tracy Williams in an Internet chat room hosted by Yahoo, comments were posted by Williams calling him “Nazi”, “racist bigot” and “nonce.” His solicitors petitioned the court to obtain the poster’s details from Yahoo.

Despite court proceedings, she continued the abuse. She was ordered to pay £10,000 GB compensation and £17,200 GB costs.

Godfrey v. Demon Internet Service

Laurence Godfrey, A British physics lecturer, alleged that somebody had been posting messages to the newsgroup soc.culture.thai. The message were forged to make them look like they were sent by Godfrey.

He alerted the ISP, Demon, and asked them to remove the messages. They did not remove the offending material and it remained there for 10 days, before it was automatically deleted like any other messages.

He sued for libel and cited Demon’s failure to remove the messages as the reason. As pointed out above, innocence is only a defence if the defendant is unaware of the comments. Under English law, ISPs are not regarded as publishers unless they have been notified of the material.

Demon settled out of court and paid £15,000 GB damages and about £250,000 GB in expenses.

Godfrey went on to bring about a number of successful libel actions including against Toronto Star, University of Minnesota and Cornell University.

Share this page with others