The following was taken from a respected UK IT News Site....
Self-censorship
Companies that run websites where opinions can be freely expressed are nervous of libel laws, and for good reason. In the UK, there is no legal precedent to say whether the author of a defamatory statement made on a website is solely responsible for it.
One web user brought a case against the ISP Demon Internet, saying that it was liable for untrue statements about him posted on a website because it was the 'publisher', like a newspaper. The case was settled out of court, and the principle of 'notice and take down' was established.
This often means that ISPs will remove material when notified that it is potentially libellous, regardless of whether it's actually true (and therefore perfectly legal).
But there is no guarantee that an ISP or site owner would be protected from prosecution in the event of a libel action, so don't be surprised if your strong opinions or statements get you barred from a website.
User Posted Link
Posted By: Ben on October 31st 2005 at 23:04:17
Message Thread
- Well done Ben (n/m) (NCFC) - Westfields1, Oct 31, 22:11:08
- Well done? (NCFC) - The Judge, Oct 31, 22:15:26
- Well done Ben (NCFC) - Westfields1, Oct 31, 22:14:05
- As long as I react to requests to remove content... (NCFC) - Ben, Oct 31, 22:18:40
- Not so clever Ben (NCFC) - Westfields1, Oct 31, 22:24:59
- Can you find a previous UK case where a website owner has be successfully sued? (n/m) (NCFC) - Ben, Oct 31, 22:27:45
- Yes - go to any reputable search engine (NCFC) - Westfields1, Oct 31, 22:50:35
- The following was taken from a respected UK IT News Site.... (NCFC) - Ben, Oct 31, 23:04:17
- There isn't one (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 31, 22:29:24
- Yes - go to any reputable search engine (NCFC) - Westfields1, Oct 31, 22:50:35
- Can you find a previous UK case where a website owner has be successfully sued? (n/m) (NCFC) - Ben, Oct 31, 22:27:45
- Not so clever Ben (NCFC) - Westfields1, Oct 31, 22:24:59
- But in some cases (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 31, 22:17:43
- bullshit, people are bored & spout shit. (n/m) (NCFC) - lovely old job, Oct 31, 22:21:01
- OK (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 31, 22:23:02
- Dont be silly Pragmatist (NCFC) - Westfields1, Oct 31, 22:31:02
- The Sun and NOTW (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 31, 22:33:07
- I reckon for every 5000 rumours 1 may have a tinge of truth (NCFC) - lovely old job, Oct 31, 22:28:46
- Reason any City related 'rumours' (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 31, 22:31:13
- more importantly they are not worthy of reading. (n/m) (NCFC) - lovely old job, Oct 31, 22:34:11
- Ok (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 31, 22:37:05
- more importantly they are not worthy of reading. (n/m) (NCFC) - lovely old job, Oct 31, 22:34:11
- Reason any City related 'rumours' (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 31, 22:31:13
- Dont be silly Pragmatist (NCFC) - Westfields1, Oct 31, 22:31:02
- OK (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 31, 22:23:02
- bullshit, people are bored & spout shit. (n/m) (NCFC) - lovely old job, Oct 31, 22:21:01
- As long as I react to requests to remove content... (NCFC) - Ben, Oct 31, 22:18:40
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.