CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘Defamation’ Category

Newspaper thwarts libel claim with E-Commerce Regulations defence: “A newspaper publisher was not liable for user comments posted after an online article and will not have to pay out libel damages, the High Court has ruled.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

High Court: Online article with only four visits not libel: “

Claimants told where to go in no uncertain terms

A libel action over an article that appeared on the website of a South African magazine has been dismissed by a court in England. Evidence suggested that the article had received only four visits from the UK in a two month period.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Libel law reform campaigners seek £10,000 damages cap: “English libel law imposes disproportionate restrictions on free speech, according to an independent report that recommends 10 changes to the laws. The Ministry of Justice said today that it will launch a consultation on defamation and the internet.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

High Court rejects libel case because article received approximately four visits: “A libel action over an article that appeared on the website of a South African magazine has been dismissed by a court in England. Evidence suggested that the article had received only four visits from the UK in a two month period.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

The Twitter storm that saved freedom of speech: “

But not exactly, not really…

Comment So was it Twitter what won it? Yesterday, in the wake of a flurry of Twitter and blogosphere outrage, the ’super-injunction’ banning the Guardian (and, we should note, everybody else) from reporting details of a parliamentary question effectively collapsed. ‘A few tweets and freedom of speech is restored,’ the Graun itself said, while Tory blogger Iain Dale claimed: ‘Let there be no mistake. This would not have happened without the online engagement through various blogs and Twitter which has happened over the last 18 hours or so.’…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Reporting bans may lose their power in Twitter age says expert after Guardian ban is lifted: “The editor of a newspaper which was banned from reporting on the tabling of a question in Parliament has thanked the users of micro-blogging service Twitter for their role in what he called a ‘victory for free speech’.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

UK lawyer threatens Facebook, mulls action against ISPs to block defamation: “The lawyer who has threatened Facebook with a defamation suit on behalf of boxing promoter Frank Warren has said that he may take action against internet service providers (ISPs) for US-published defamation.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

UK – Boxer threatens Facebook with legal action(Guardian)
The WBA light welterweight champion Amir Khan and his promoter, Frank Warren, are squaring up to the social networking site Facebook in a legal battle that could have far-reaching consequences. The pair have engaged lawyers to threaten the US internet company with action over the use of images and names alongside material they consider to be defamatory and racist. Stephen Taylor Heath, head of sports and media at Lupton Fawcett, said that a cursory search of Facebook quickly led to ‘bogus’ pages that used the images and names of the pair to link to material that would be ‘highly defamatory’ if published in a newspaper or magazine. Warren, who has fought several high-profile legal battles, is understood to be determined to force Facebook to change its policy and take responsibility for the more unsavoury opinions of its registered users. There is a legal grey area about the extent to which the operator of a website, or the provider of community tools, can be held liable for comments posted.

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

Trade libel lawsuits soar: “The number of defamation cases brought by businesses has trebled in the past year, according to a legal publisher. The number of defamation cases overall increased by a third in the same period.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Google not liable for defamatory search snippets: “

High Court heads off flood of cases from world + dog

Google is not the publisher of defamatory words that appear in its search results, the High Court ruled yesterday. Even when Google had been told that its results contained libellous words, it was not liable as a publisher, said Mr Justice Eady.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)