New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case

MumsNet

So here we are: one of Britain’s most wealthy and successful childcare experts demanding the closure of a community website run by mothers to enable parents to swap support, advice and the odd joke. […]

Quite apart from the fact that Ms Ford’s legal moves now threaten our very existence, we think this case raises broader issues which anyone who cares about freedom of speech should worry about. Some of these relate to British libel law and how it applies to bulletin boards.

Although Mumsnet believes the vast majority of postings about which Ms Ford has complained are defensible debate in that they relate to her methods, rather than her in person, it is probably true that most people would not have enjoyed being on the receiving end of some of the jokes or more robust comments. But bulletin boards differ from traditional media like newspapers and magazines in two key respects.

…etc; this was mentioned on Today this morning, and the statement/webpage tells a tale of apparent legal zealotry.

Let’s see how it moves, but spread the word.

Comments

9 responses to “New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case”

  1. alecm
    re: New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case

    coverage

    news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1217612.ece

    technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1839338,00.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2302957,00.html

  2. 217.169.41.113
    re: New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case

    Dare we comment………

  3. Chris Samuel
    re: New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case

    Bah – stupid laws.. 🙁

    I videoed Donna and myself on TV tonight which makes me an instant criminal here. “Put the remote control down and step away from the VCR”..

  4. Katz
    Wow…

    Looks like equal madness on each side of the ocean. Bah Humbug.

  5. Stephen Usher
    re: New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case

    You pirate!

    I’ve heard about the draconian copyright (and import) laws in Australia.

    Maybe they’re trying to live up to the old stereotype image of aussieland as being a penal colony full of criminals by making sure that the laws make everyone who lives there breaks the law. 😉

  6. Chris Samuel
    Aussie VCR/iPod criminals, sorry, owners..

    We have no fair use rights here.

    Theoretically the only CD’s I own that I’ve transferred to my iPod that are legal are the two that Donna made, so she (as the copyright owner) gave me permission to format shift them onto my iPod.

    Apparently they want to change the law so we can legally record TV, but *only* on condition that you delete it as soon as you’ve watched it..

  7. Em
    re: New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case

    Having finally looked at the links I understand.

    Gina Ford is someone who polarises opinion. You either really agree or really disagree with her methods. I can understand why debate regarding her methods got very heated.

  8. Em
    re: New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case

    Being a bit cynical, how much of this is due to the fact that Gina Ford has her own website with advice and a discussion board etc that you could say was in competition with the Mumsnet one.

  9. 85.210.6.166
    re: New, British Bulletin Board Libel Case

    The question is – is an internet forum like a publication such as a newspaper, or is it like a discussion in a public place such as a pub? You can see that it has things in common with both, and unique characteristics as well. There are different laws for publications and conversations but there are no laws specifically for net forums. It’s even hard to see how you could make laws for net technology because it is changing so fast. The law has to be unambiguous and specific, which is can’t be regarding a rapidly changing phenomenon (that’s my lay-person’s understanding of the law, perhaps it is different than I conceive it).

    There was a case a year or so ago when somebody sold a valuable weapon in a multiplayer game and the buyer never paid up. The vendor went to the police but they could see no crime because nothing had actually changed hands. IIRC the vendor murdered the buyer in the end (which the police could clearly understand as a crime). And for how long were crackers prosecuted for “stealing electricity” because although everyone could see a crime had taken place the law couldn’t figure out exactly what it was? The law doesn’t even have the language to talk about the net, never mind deal with it sensibly.

    What can we do? We can’t turn the world wide web off whilst the lawyers catch up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *