BrianH
At the Start
Warning to chatroom users after libel award for man labelled a Nazi
· High court orders lecturer to pay £10,000 damages
· Lawyers say case confirms existing law applies on net
Owen Gibson, media correspondent
Thursday March 23, 2006
The Guardian
A political argument that erupted in a remote corner of cyberspace and descended into vicious name-calling could lead to a spate of libel actions by contributors to internet message boards, the man at the centre of the case claimed yesterday.
The dark side of the blogosphere was revealed by a libel action brought by Michael Keith-Smith, a former Conservative party member who stood for Ukip in Portsmouth North at the last election. He said he was moved to sue after a woman with whom he was debating the merits of military action in Iraq began a campaign of name-calling that started by describing him as "lard brain" and culminated in falsely labelling him a "Nazi", a "racist bigot" and a "nonce".
Tracy Williams, a college lecturer from Oldham, was ordered by a high court judge to pay £10,000 in damages, as well as Mr Keith-Smith's £7,200 costs, and told never to repeat the allegations.
The case is one of the first of its kind between two private individuals to go to court and, said lawyers, highlighted issues that would become more prominent as internet usage continued to grow and blogging, social networking and community sites became yet more popular.
Mr Keith-Smith told the Guardian that he took action after a debate about the Iraq war in 2003 on a Yahoo! message board with about 100 members turned ugly. "She was very pro-Bush. Initially, she called me lard brain and I wasn't particularly concerned about that. Then she called me a Nazi," he said.
He has also taken action against a second poster, he said, with whom he claimed to have settled for a sum "in the region of £30,000".
"They started saying I was on a sex offenders' list and that people shouldn't let me near their children," said Mr Keith-Smith, who is also chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, which bills itself as "the leading voice of the radical Tory right".
He resolved to take legal action after the pair accused his wife of being a prostitute. But once his solicitors petitioned the court to find out the identity of Ms Williams, who contributed to the forum under a pseudonym, the abuse got worse.
"It's a matter of principle. I had no proof that anyone who read this took it seriously. I just didn't see why she should be allowed to get away with it," he said.
Legal experts said the case should be taken as a warning to the millions of people in the UK debating contentious issues on message boards, in chatrooms and on their own blogs that the laws of libel applied just as they would if the comments were published in a leaflet or newsletter.
But despite claims from some that Judge Alistair MacDuff's high court decision would hamper freedom of speech, most said the case merely provided confirmation of the existing law.
"You can't say this is something that should just be allowed to carry on. I don't think it is going to open any floodgates; it's a quite sensible application of the law," said Caroline Keane, a partner at media law firm Wiggin LLP.
But Mark Stephens, head of media law at Finer Stephens Innocent, said the case should trigger a wider debate about whether the libel law was best suited to deal with such cases. If a chatroom was self-moderating and had a limited circulation, he questioned whether such cases should ever reach court.
Most such cases never reach court because most complaints tend to be to an ISP or site owner, which would take down the defamatory content as soon as it was notified and the person making the libellous allegations would back down.
FAQ: Internet libel
Should internet service providers be worried about libel?
The issue of liability was a grey area for ISPs, but a workable system has developed through European and UK law whereby ISPs are not generally considered liable as long as they act to take down potentially libellous material when notified.
Does this affect freedom of speech?
Some have argued that in ISPs' haste to take down material complained about, they are in effect curtailing freedom of speech.
Why haven't more of these cases come to court?
Lawyers say cases between individuals have tended to be settled before reaching court.
What about site owners?
Uncertainty remains over whether a site owner such as the BBC would be liable, particularly if it claimed to moderate comments before they were added to a website.
· High court orders lecturer to pay £10,000 damages
· Lawyers say case confirms existing law applies on net
Owen Gibson, media correspondent
Thursday March 23, 2006
The Guardian
A political argument that erupted in a remote corner of cyberspace and descended into vicious name-calling could lead to a spate of libel actions by contributors to internet message boards, the man at the centre of the case claimed yesterday.
The dark side of the blogosphere was revealed by a libel action brought by Michael Keith-Smith, a former Conservative party member who stood for Ukip in Portsmouth North at the last election. He said he was moved to sue after a woman with whom he was debating the merits of military action in Iraq began a campaign of name-calling that started by describing him as "lard brain" and culminated in falsely labelling him a "Nazi", a "racist bigot" and a "nonce".
Tracy Williams, a college lecturer from Oldham, was ordered by a high court judge to pay £10,000 in damages, as well as Mr Keith-Smith's £7,200 costs, and told never to repeat the allegations.
The case is one of the first of its kind between two private individuals to go to court and, said lawyers, highlighted issues that would become more prominent as internet usage continued to grow and blogging, social networking and community sites became yet more popular.
Mr Keith-Smith told the Guardian that he took action after a debate about the Iraq war in 2003 on a Yahoo! message board with about 100 members turned ugly. "She was very pro-Bush. Initially, she called me lard brain and I wasn't particularly concerned about that. Then she called me a Nazi," he said.
He has also taken action against a second poster, he said, with whom he claimed to have settled for a sum "in the region of £30,000".
"They started saying I was on a sex offenders' list and that people shouldn't let me near their children," said Mr Keith-Smith, who is also chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, which bills itself as "the leading voice of the radical Tory right".
He resolved to take legal action after the pair accused his wife of being a prostitute. But once his solicitors petitioned the court to find out the identity of Ms Williams, who contributed to the forum under a pseudonym, the abuse got worse.
"It's a matter of principle. I had no proof that anyone who read this took it seriously. I just didn't see why she should be allowed to get away with it," he said.
Legal experts said the case should be taken as a warning to the millions of people in the UK debating contentious issues on message boards, in chatrooms and on their own blogs that the laws of libel applied just as they would if the comments were published in a leaflet or newsletter.
But despite claims from some that Judge Alistair MacDuff's high court decision would hamper freedom of speech, most said the case merely provided confirmation of the existing law.
"You can't say this is something that should just be allowed to carry on. I don't think it is going to open any floodgates; it's a quite sensible application of the law," said Caroline Keane, a partner at media law firm Wiggin LLP.
But Mark Stephens, head of media law at Finer Stephens Innocent, said the case should trigger a wider debate about whether the libel law was best suited to deal with such cases. If a chatroom was self-moderating and had a limited circulation, he questioned whether such cases should ever reach court.
Most such cases never reach court because most complaints tend to be to an ISP or site owner, which would take down the defamatory content as soon as it was notified and the person making the libellous allegations would back down.
FAQ: Internet libel
Should internet service providers be worried about libel?
The issue of liability was a grey area for ISPs, but a workable system has developed through European and UK law whereby ISPs are not generally considered liable as long as they act to take down potentially libellous material when notified.
Does this affect freedom of speech?
Some have argued that in ISPs' haste to take down material complained about, they are in effect curtailing freedom of speech.
Why haven't more of these cases come to court?
Lawyers say cases between individuals have tended to be settled before reaching court.
What about site owners?
Uncertainty remains over whether a site owner such as the BBC would be liable, particularly if it claimed to moderate comments before they were added to a website.
D/G so they advocated but remembering it was so quick I think there were other implications too............
