ISP Liability for Content - Demon.uk Case

mdmbkr wrote to us with the BBC coverage of the current legal situation surrounding Demon.co.uk. Demon has dropped an intended appeal against a libel ruling, in which the British High Court had made ISP's responsible for "any defamatory material they know they are carrying, irrespective of where it originated." Demon has decided to re-driect its' efforts to shaping legislation currently being shaped in Parliament.

Comments

Re:Give me a break....

[nhw]

This is like suing the phone company because I said something about someone else I didn't like over a phone conversation.

If this becomes any sort of legal precedent, then I will go right out and sue my own phone company for libel when all my friends talk about me behind my back.

You can't sue for libel over a spoken conversation: you can only be libelled where the defamatory matter is published. At least in this jurisdiction (England/Wales).

You could try suing for slander though. :-)

The facts of the case are interesting. The plaintiff in the case informed Demon that they had libellous material (and it was not disputed at trial that the material was, in fact, libellous), but Demon didn't do anything about it.

Now, technically, in English law, the act of serving an article from a news spool is publication. Since Demon knew that the article was potentially libellous, they couldn't avail themselves of the 'innocent publication' defence that is part of the 1996(? I should know this) Act.

In terms of legal reasoning, the argument is pretty cut and dried.

I would be very surprised that, had he not informed of the existence of the posting before suing, the plaintiff in this case would've succeeded before the court.

Therefore, I don't think the ramifications of this case are as far reaching as some will no doubt prophesy. That's not to say that there aren't some important implications:

1) The role of ISP as censor - from now on, if I see something on a newsgroup that I don't like, I can send out a note to all the ISPs in England asking them to remove it, or face a libel action. How many of them are going to take a stand and refuse to remove the article if they know that getting the call wrong means an expensive libel suit?

2) If you think this is a bad thing, how _can_ you protect ISPs from this sort of thing, without 'breaking' a load of case law?

Tough one.

I, too, was sued by Godfrey

[Anonymous Coward]

I was also sued by Godfrey a while back. The character is nothing but a flame baiter. Just like the kid back in school who would mouth off to others, and then cry to the teacher when someone gave him back a dose of his own BS.

Demon, most likely, did not bother appealing because the British court allowed into evidence samples of some of his own postings to usenet, which clearly show what an ass he can be. He posts to uk.legal from time to time these days, offering articulate advice and commentary; but Demon was smart enough to dig beneath the surface and exposed him for what he really is, something which no one else had either the time or resources to do, myself included. Their damages, if any, in this case, would be minimal, so there is no point to them pursuing it. You should check out http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/godfrey3.htm for more info and a sample of Larry's better works.

Godfrey has used the British libel laws (which are heavily in favor of the plaintiff) to harass countless people, many of whom settle out of court for a few thousand bucks, just to make him go away. The smart ones have just ignored him, especially those out of the UK court jurisdiction.

The only frigtening implication will be if this leads to a climate where everyone must censor themselves and follow the lowest common legal denominator.

Rain on you parade, but

[craw]

Jon Katz and RMS are flaming idiots who secretly use MS Outlook Express to check their e-mail at their AOL accounts. They are obviously not nerds since they use both AOL and MS.

There, I just said here at /. for all to read. Katz and RMS are incredibly offended by this as they do not use AOL and consider themselves nerds. Steve Case is offended that I have disparaged his fine company. Bill Gates calls out to his minions that he now wants my head on a platter.

Comments are owned by the Poster.

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you.

Rob, I hate to raise this issue, but suing a ISP has relevance for this site. I may be wrong but some of the comments that are posted here may be interpreted as being rather inflammatory. This leads to the following questions.

1) Is your ISP responsible for the /. content?
2) Are you protected from our stupid comments?
3) Will you turn over your log files when the Man slaps you with a subpoena? Remember Raytheon?
4) There are court case related to posting links to libelous material. Do you have some policy with regard to this as we can include links in our comments?
5) Moderators control what is up and what is down. Can they be held accountable for their actions? You do have log files that document the actions of the moderators.

I feel like a real asshole right now for asking these questions. Please flame me if I'm wrong but I would hate to see bad things happen to you or to this site. One suggestion is to contact a group of legal eagles that would probably be willing to provide you with some info. I don't know if they are the right ppl but the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School might be a good place to start.

Just before I sent this in I checked the other comments and saw that chabotic raises similar concerns.

Off topic: Everybody's posting should start at the default level (0 or 1) unless they come from someone who is always -1.