💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 3480.gmi captured on 2023-06-16 at 19:27:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2011-10-21 09:18:29
Websites should have protection from defamation cases if they act quickly to
remove anonymous postings which prompt a complaint, a report says.
A joint parliamentary committee says it wants a "cultural shift" so that posts
under pseudonyms are not considered "true, reliable or trustworthy".
It says websites which identify authors and publish complaints alongside
comments should get legal protection.
But Mumsnet said the proposal could have a "chilling effect" on websites.
The report by the joint committee of MPs and peers who examined the draft
defamation bill covers a wide range of defamation issues.
Its recommendations - including more protection for scientists and academics
writing in peer-reviewed journals and more work on reducing "unacceptably" high
costs of libel cases by encouraging more to be resolved through mediation -
have been welcomed by the Libel Reform Campaign.
'Entirely legitimate'
The committee also proposes a new "notice and takedown procedure" for
defamatory online comments - aimed at providing a quick remedy for those who
are defamed and to give websites which use the procedure more legal protection.
Under the current law, websites are liable for defamatory statements made by
their users. If they fail to take down a post when they receive a complaint,
they risk being treated as the "primary publisher" of the statement.
Start Quote
Anonymity may encourage free speech but it also discourages responsibility
Draft Defamation Bill Committee
The report says many "entirely legitimate" comments may be removed by websites
who are keen to avoid legal liability.
It recommends that where complaints are made about comments from identified
authors - the website should promptly publish a notice of the complaint
alongside it.
The complainant can then apply to a court for a "takedown" order - which if
granted, should result in the comment being removed, if the website is to avoid
the risk of a defamation claim.
But where potentially defamatory comments are anonymous, the website should
immediately remove them on receipt of a complaint, unless the author agrees to
identify themselves, the report says.
'Mischievous and malicious'
The author of the comment can then be sued for defamation but if a website
refuses to take down an anonymous remark it "should be treated as its publisher
and face the risk of libel proceedings".
The report also says a website could apply to a court for a "leave-up" order -
if it considers the anonymous comment to be on a matter of "significant" public
interest.
Start Quote
If you think all anonymity is bad you could end up with unintended consequences
of removing peer-to-peer support, in particular around sensitive issues
Mumsnet spokeswoman
The committee criticises comments made anonymously, which it says "may
encourage free speech but it also discourages responsibility" and sets out
moves it hopes will lead to a "cultural shift towards a general recognition
that unidentified postings are not to be treated as true, reliable or
trustworthy".
It says the aim of its proposal is to reduce damage "inflicted by the
mischievous and the malicious".
But Mumsnet, a parenting website, says many of its members rely on the ability
to ask questions or post comments anonymously.
Many of the women posting messages do so under a "user name", rather than their
real name - and the site is worried the proposal will mean more people
demanding messages be taken down.
Its co-founder, Justine Roberts, said while it was right to stop people from
"assassinating the character of others from behind the cloak of anonymity" the
report did not recognise how useful anonymous postings were "in allowing people
to speak honestly about difficult real-life situations".
"The recommendations could have a chilling effect on sites like Mumsnet where
many thousands of people use anonymity to confidentially seek and give advice
about sensitive real-life situations."
In 2007, the website settled a libel case with Gina Ford, author of the
Contented Little Babies book, over comments posted about her by its users.
A spokeswoman said they received about 10 complaints a month about comments on
the site - and "two or three big ones a year" - often from small companies who
had been reviewed by its members. It often agrees to take comments down.
But she said anonymous posts were important to the site - for example in its
campaign for better care for women who have miscarried, where they have had a
midwife and doctor making anonymous contributions.
"What we're really keen to do is to say there is some value in it [anonymous
posts] and that is very different to being an anonymous troll and waging war on
someone.
"If you think all anonymity is bad you could end up with unintended
consequences of removing peer-to-peer support, in particular around sensitive
issues."