Libel and the Internet

[straydog]

Following reading some pretty salacious rumor mongering and accusations on certain threads here, I thought it might be worth starting this thread, firstly in case anyone hadn't considered any of the issues involved and secondly to see if anyone has anything to add to the discussion....


So a few links to get things started:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/mar/23/digitalmedia.law

http://www.ehow.com/how_2040840_sue-someone-internet-libel.html

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article3677002.ece

Interested to hear peoples thoughts....no name calling though....or I will call my lawyer

 

[Anonymous]

the important bit

Internet libel consists of statements published on Web sites that were known to be false by the writer and that can be shown to have caused harm to the party at which they were directed.

Its only libellous if you know it to be false, you dont have to know it to be true. So for instance, If i accuse Armstrong of doping its not libel, as I do not know that to be false.

 

[Race Radio]

So when the groupies write that Armstrong is not a doper, even though they know he is, they are writing something libelous? ......... the guy has to keep his street cred.

 

[straydog]

the important bit



Its only libellous if you know it to be false, you dont have to know it to be true. So for instance, If i accuse Armstrong of doping its not libel, as I do not know that to be false.

Hi Dim,

It's an interesting point....actually, from my understanding (and I am definitely not a lawyer, but I met one once) if someone accuses anyone of anything, then potentially they open themselves to libel proceedings, just as you would offline. i.e..the burden of proof lies also in providing evidence to prove that anything you stated was not false. i.e that you knew it to be true. This opens you up for scrutiny etc. Witness John Mcvicar and Linford Christie.

Honestly, i think it highly unlikely LA is going to be coming after anyone here for doping innuendo or accussations, but you never know...however I have read stuff here in relation to other innuendo that could pertain to what could possibly be seen as online harrassment, which can also land you in court, that I think some people might not be aware of.

Peace

 

[straydog]

So when the groupies write that Armstrong is not a doper, even though they know he is, they are writing something libelous? ......... the guy has to keep his street cred.

Well Race....what is said also has to be proved to have caused harm....so whilst I appreciate the attempt at irony...it doesn't quite work.

There is however, something called "fair judgement". So repeating a well tread group thought could be a possible defence, but as I said, I think there have been some fairly specific singular accusations, not just towards LA by the way, regarding families, private lives, business interests etc that could definitely appear to be harmful.

For example....that is about the tenth time you have called me a groupie....now that might upset my wife

 

[Race Radio]

Well Race....what is said also has to be proved to have caused harm....so whilst I appreciate the attempt at irony...it doesn't quite work.

There is however, something called "fair judgement". So repeating a well tread group thought could be a possible defence, but as I said, I think there have been some fairly specific singular accusations, not just towards LA by the way, regarding families, private lives, business interests etc that could definitely appear to be harmful.

For example....that is about the tenth time you have called me a groupie....now that might upset my wife

Street cred is a very important thing in the sport of cycling. If enough people start saying that Armstrong is not a doper it may seriously damage his reputation in the Pro Peloton. Look what happened to Simeoni and Bassons, Lance does not want to go through that pain.

I did not call you a groupie. That special term is saved for the truly shut off from reality, like our friend BPC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ong-fan-faked-cancer-to-marry-girlfriend.html

 

[straydog]

just chucking these into the mix too:

http://www.netslander.com/

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

The second I think is the most salient and includes this bit:

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

 

[straydog]

Street cred is a very important thing in the sport of cycling. If enough people start saying that Armstrong is not a doper it may seriously damage his reputation in the Pro Peloton. Look what happened to Simeoni and Bassons, Lance does not want to go through that pain.

I did not call you a groupie. That special term is saved for the truly shut off from reality, like our friend BPC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ong-fan-faked-cancer-to-marry-girlfriend.html

who said Simeoni didn't dope? where? I am calling Johnny C

 

[straydog]

Street cred is a very important thing in the sport of cycling. If enough people start saying that Armstrong is not a doper it may seriously damage his reputation in the Pro Peloton. Look what happened to Simeoni and Bassons, Lance does not want to go through that pain.

I did not call you a groupie. That special term is saved for the truly shut off from reality, like our friend BPC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...faked-cancer-to-marry-girlfriend.html[/i][/b]

Sorry....I missed this bit....are we supposed to infer something about the article you included?

 

[Francois the Postman]

actually, from my understanding (and I am definitely not a lawyer, but I met one once) if someone accuses anyone of anything, then potentially they open themselves to libel proceedings, just as you would offline. i.e..the burden of proof lies also in providing evidence to prove that anything you stated was not false. i.e that you knew it to be true. This opens you up for scrutiny etc. Witness John Mcvicar and Linford Christie.

There are no "internet" laws. What is and isn't libel, and how/if/when it can be taken to court first and foremost of which country's (or countries') laws apply.

And since I am no lawyer, that is also where my speculation will stop I think. All the more as I am under the impression that most places are still trying to figure out how to deal with legal issues thrown up by the internet.

 

[straydog]

There are no "internet" laws. What is and isn't libel, and how/if/when it can be taken to court first and foremost of which country's (or countries') laws apply.

And since I am no lawyer, that is also where my speculation will stop I think. All the more as I am under the impression that most places are still trying to figure out how to deal with legal issues thrown up by the internet.

Kind of my point Francois, but I also wanted to draw peoples attention to the fact that anonymous posting doesn't get you off the hook if what you have said is proven to be libelous, as per the first article. From what I see it is becoming more common for these things to end up in court. Also Sites can be compelled by the courts into revealing IP and contact addresses, in both libel and harassment cases, to enable identification of anonymous culprits.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Kind of my point Francois, but I also wanted to draw peoples attention to the fact that anonymous posting doesn't get you off the hook if what you have said is proven to be libelous, as per the first article. From what I see it is becoming more common for these things to end up in court. Also Sites can be compelled by the courts into revealing IP and contact addresses, in both libel and harassment cases, to enable identification of anonymous culprits.

I am sure that there is a trending line up from "0", but "more common" is a bit of a misnomer if you consider how much libellous statements there are flying round on the internet, anonymous and -eh- nonymous. I haven't done the maths, but I am sure that wittingly inappropriate use of the Nazi label alone would fill courts several times over, daily, if it really was becoming "more common" in a significant way.

But yeah, an interesting area, and horrifically complex.

 

[Francois the Postman]

One afterthought: is this about our forum in particular, or do you want to discuss the issue in general? If the latter, I will move it to the "general" subgroup.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Interesting read the links are, and good to know about. Really. Some good common sense and treating others as we'd like to be treated should help prevent most issues even if opinions differ. On this forum, we all are cyclists or love cycling. So we're all mates who like to talk cycling (or about stuff in general).

 

[Hugh Januss]

I am sure that there is a trending line up from "0", but "more common" is a bit of a misnomer if you consider how much libellous statements there are flying round on the internet, anonymous and -eh- nonymous. I haven't done the maths, but I am sure that wittingly inappropriate use of the Nazi label alone would fill courts several times over, daily, if it really was becoming "more common" in a significant way.

But yeah, an interesting area, and horrifically complex.

By more common he may mean trending upwards somewhere between being struck by lightning and being audited for taxes.

 

[straydog]

I am sure that there is a trending line up from "0", but "more common" is a bit of a misnomer if you consider how much libellous statements there are flying round on the internet, anonymous and -eh- nonymous. I haven't done the maths, but I am sure that wittingly inappropriate use of the Nazi label alone would fill courts several times over, daily, if it really was becoming "more common" in a significant way.

But yeah, an interesting area, and horrifically complex.

from zero to one is "more common" if i was being pedantic....but actually, don't forget most libel cases end up settled rather than judged, so how many have included the internet is hard to be exact about. But it seems it is definitely on the rise. My general point is that up until recently I don't think people considered what they posted anonymously on an internet forum could land them in court.

You are right, of course, a lot of insults and accusations go unchecked, because in part, I think, people still aren't aware of what legal recourse they have if they are victim to it...and frankly because those public figures being libeled don't hear about it often or aren't overly bothered, mainly because unlike us it seems, most of them have better things to do than hang out on internet forums.

And, whilst this thread isn't perse about this forum.....I did start it from concern about certain things I have been reading here pretty often, and as such I would rather it stayed here as it is very relevant to our forum....but the decision is obviously yours.

Got to hit the hay now....more later.

one more though....very very interesting : http://www.weblaw.co.uk/articles/defamation-and-the-internet/

Peace

 

[Barrus]

Look, I can give you guys some understanding of defamation on the itnernet once I get home. But lets just get the short and the long of it. Cyclingnews cannot be held accountable for anything that is writte on this forum
Also due to the fact that most of the people who could institgate a case for libel for something written on this forum, are public figures means that there is no real chance anyone could be held accountable, in any jurisdiction.

Anyway I'm off, but I also don't think anyone would like the entire lecture I would give anyway

 

[straydog]

Look, I can give you guys some understanding of defamation on the itnernet once I get home. But lets just get the short and the long of it. Cyclingnews cannot be held accountable for anything that is writte on this forum
Also due to the fact that most of the people who could institgate a case for libel for something written on this forum, are public figures means that there is no real chance anyone could be held accountable, in any jurisdiction.

Anyway I'm off, but I also don't think anyone would like the entire lecture I would give anyway

Hi barrus,
Actually the lecture would be most welcome if you have some legal insight to add.
You say above that CN can not be held accountable for anything written, which interests me as from what I have read, the "publisher" seems to have been held accountable on a number of occasions if they didn't act properly to remove any libelous items.

Also, you say that someone being well known makes it extremely unlikely they would sue. Why would this be, in your opinion? As in the articles I linked to that is exactly what happened.

Really interested to hear your opinion, especially if you have a legal background.

Peace

 

[Barrus]

Thank goodness you want to know about accountability of the website, as I have far more knowledge of this than regular defamation. But before I answer your question I want to know for which state you want to know (the US, some European state, Australia, these three being probably the regions where most of our members come from, or of a third state outside of these three?) The reason I need to know this, is because of the differences within regulations.

The reason why a famous person would not sue, is because a public figure has almost no chance of winning, due to the fact that most legal regimes have some regulation about public figures in their defamation doctrine which offer great breadth, or almost complete immunity in some regimes, for the person making the statements.

Also that latest article you posted desperately ancient and the person writing it, seeing as it was written in 2008 hasn't been keeping up to date since at least 1996

 

[ergmonkey]

Without getting into any real details, it's worth keeping the end game of any libel litigation in mind: the plaintiff would have to sue for 1) an injunction; and/or 2) damages.

An injunction would only mean that the offending poster has to stop writing mean, false stuff. Big deal. To say nothing of the fact that the plaintiff would need to demonstrate a probable result of imminent, irreparable harm from ongoing statements in most cases.

Suing for damages would require that the damages be more than merely speculative. Quantifying the extent of harm from anonymous and relatively thinly broadcast internet criticisms would likely be too speculative an endeavor.

This being said, it would still be nice for all of us to think before we post. And then, of course, skewer whomever we want in good faith...

 

[BroDeal]

This looks suspiciously like a straydog attempt to scare people from posting the truth about Armstrong.

 

[Race Radio]

Without getting into any real details, it's worth keeping the end game of any libel litigation in mind: the plaintiff would have to sue for 1) an injunction; and/or 2) damages.

An injunction would only mean that the offending poster has to stop writing mean, false stuff. Big deal. To say nothing of the fact that the plaintiff would need to demonstrate a probable result of imminent, irreparable harm from ongoing statements in most cases.

Suing for damages would require that the damages be more than merely speculative. Quantifying the extent of harm from anonymous and relatively thinly broadcast internet criticisms would likely be too speculative an endeavor.

This being said, it would still be nice for all of us to think before we post. And then, of course, skewer whomever we want in good faith...

This is correct. Specific damages are important. For example if there was a young rider who was about to sign a professional contract and someone came on here and repeated posted that he was a doper, that he had seen him dope, etc. If the DS read this and decided not to sign him.....and was willing to testify that the reason he did not sign him was because what a poster said about his doping he might have a case for damages.

On the other hand if a poster repeatedly made invented lies about me or my family. Writing that "Race Radio did XXX" I would have no recourse as I am anonymous, I do not own the username or trademark for "Race Radio" and I could show no actual damages. If I pursued such a case against another poster, especially in the UK, I would expose myself to picking up all the court costs for both sides.

Another interesting point about UK law is you cannot libel nicknames, even if the owner of the nickname is known. Using Wonderboy, Big Tex, Uniballer, etc. is a good option. This also makes it pretty much impossible for us to sue each other on this forum as we all use nicknames (Usernames) to address each other.

 

[Race Radio]

This looks suspiciously like a straydog attempt to scare people from posting the truth about Armstrong.

I don't know who this Armstrong guy is you write about. I only write about Wonderboy.

 

[Cal_Joe]

A good source of information regarding US laws and recent cases can be found at the Electronic Frontier Foundation website - https://www.eff.org/search?text=libel

Internet anonymity is also an interesting issue - https://www.eff.org/search?text=anonymity

 

[Race Radio]

A good source of information regarding US laws and recent cases can be found at the Electronic Frontier Foundation website - https://www.eff.org/search?text=libel

Internet anonymity is also an interesting issue - https://www.eff.org/search?text=anonymity

Some good links Joe.

Anonymity is a key topic when it comes to libel. For example if you are on the internet writing about a person, company, stock etc. in a libelous manner don't expect to remain anonymous. If you write about another poster here it depends on if they are anonymous or not. If they have an anonymous username you can write pretty much anything you want but if they, like Joe Papp does, give their real name, website, contact, etc. then it could be seen as libel.