Defamation and the web
We’ve all probably been at a party or in a pub where someone has said something nasty about another person, something invented in viciousness or through silly speculation, or repeated unthinkingly. Usually it’s harmless gossip and quickly forgotten, but if serious enough it could lead to a charge of defamation. It’s even more serious if it’s made in a public or permanent medium, such as a letter, memo, email, book or broadcast. We’ve all probably repeated some juicy bit of gossip ourselves, but we tend to be sensible enough to not do so in a public and recordable way.
Not so in the world of the internet, where outrageous allegations are made in chatrooms, message boards, blogs and comments. I review every comment before it goes out on this website. I don’t censor critical comments, but I have had to kill a couple because they were nasty, personal, and possibly libellous, attacks on someone.
Social media sites are notorious for such attacks, so I was pleased to see that an English judge has awarded damages to a victim of a defamatory attack on Facebook. I’ve been concerned for some time by a common attitude amongst some web users that “anything goes,” using bogus arguments about freedom of speech and democratisation of communication. The laws of defamation exist for good reason, and the easy access to mass audiences afforded by the internet makes them more important than ever.
I’m looking forward to a tightening up on personal privacy rights too. The public does not have a right to know some stuff.
PS. Perhaps every introductory course on email and internet use should include a primer on basic social etiquette and ethics. Many businesses do that, but do schools, for example?
PPS. Don’t think you can hide behind false user names or anonymity. Unless you’re technically very savvy, you leave your electronic fingerprints behind. How do you think hackers get caught?
Trackback uri
July 31st, 2008 at 10:15 am
Interesting, though troublesome. Firstly, lets assess the claim made by those who intend to uphold defamation actions. The primary premise is the protection of peoples reputation. Naturally, courts have found this often contradictory with rights such as freedom of expression. Previously, courts have been willing to uphold the right rather than protecting peoples reputation. Modern courts however, have shifted towards upholding peoples reputation. The question I ask you is, is this the right way our law should be progressing due to the fact that reputation is not a right? Is it a right not to be offended? That surely seems quite ridiculous in the modern age. Furthermore, courts have struggled in the past to objectively assess what is offensive, which therefore results in the certainty of defamation cases being marginal at best.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:26 am
“We’ve all probably been at a party or in a pub where someone has said something nasty about another person, something invented in viciousness or through silly speculation, or repeated unthinkingly.”
Yeah I’ve been at Standards NZ meetings like that
(just kidding Jim)
July 31st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Critical comment, bias, dislike and even wrong-headed opinion are perfectly ok. It’s all a question of degree, and while bureaucrats and lawyers might like it in black and white, dealing with shades of grey is a normal part of societal intercourse. Yes, there are some marginal cases, but there’s also a lot of clear-cut ones, too.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
So you argue there is a right to protection of reputation?
August 1st, 2008 at 6:49 pm
LS:
See previous comment. The laws of defamation clearly enable one to seek redress if one suffers harm because one’s reputation has been falsely and materially maligned, beyond reasonable criticism. Presumably you have some fine legal or academic point you wish to make, eg. the actual or potential effect of the loss of reputation as distinct from the loss of reputation itself. I’m assuming most of my audience understand that.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Under NZ law can a comment on a message board, in this case Trade ME, mentioning no names but seen to be making an inference to someone else on said notice board be deemed defamation? I cannot see how i could however I know of some people who are in the process of making this claim. I can understand defamation cases in regards to named people however a random comment where the only reference to poeple was the word “he”. The person whou accused the other of defaming him then proceeded to email all the contact details for the “defamer” incl home addres, business, tel and phone details and then with the words “legal disclaimer” proceeded to advise people to do something about it
August 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
IHB: I’m not a lawyer, so unable to comment at this level of specificity. Further, this looks like a specific live case, so probably best if I don’t offer an opinion anyway.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Jim, you have raised valid points.
But a concern I have based on my understanding is that the reason for freedom of speech ever being part of democracy was to ensure ‘rich / powerful / influnential’ people couldnt ‘buy’ their way into & out of things, esp in todays politically correct morally stupid world where the criminal has more rights than the victim.
True that some allegations are defamatory, but what If someone knows for a fact of some information but cant proove it, then will that person be sued?
I think legal systems will need to be very cautious about how they handle each case, else expert lawerys will be hired by almost every person just to cover up every allegation ever made on them.
As you said, this is not always black & white, evey time we try to legislate something ‘gray’, the overheads impose a greater threat than their worth, in your words a “schlimmbesserung” !
Regards