Rules On The Legal Liabilities Of A Website

[AuntPG]

Could someone with sound legal knowledge give advice if the following is correct

UK law concerning Legal liability of forum and web-site operators in the UK

"When an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a forum or a website in respect of a statement posted on their website, and the website operators are unwilling to respond positively to at least one of these requests, the operator might lose their automatic defence, which means, the website operator could be held liable for defamation for the third party post. Upon receiving a formal notice of the complaint by the victim of the defamation, the website operator must, within 48 hours send a copy of the notice of complaint to the poster asking the poster for permission to either delete their post or provide their details to the defamation victim"

Also what counts as a formal notice of complaint. does an email count. Thankyou.

[bobbinwales]

Am no expert but if you think bobbisox or anyone is defaming you I cant see it succeeding especially as the real identities are not known.
Just use the report facility or leave if you feel the site isnt supporting you.

[Gromit]

Lawyers - You must have plenty of money.

All very silly. This is a low readership forum, not the Daily Mail. Ignore the poster, ignore their posts, and get on with life.

[Redhelen72]

Well they both know my real identity

[THECORBYLOON]

Can an anonymous person be defamed?

[bobbinwales]

//Well they both know my real identity//
But others do'nt.
Take a break, is my advice

[Buenchico]

The website you've quoted from (which is here, for anyone else with an interest in this thread https://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/legal-liability-of-review-website-operators-in-the-uk ) has all the main points covered correctly.

Information about what constitutes a formal notice of complaint can be found here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269138/defamation-guidance.pdf

Some practicalities need to be noted here though:
Firstly, for an action for defamation to succeed in the courts, there is a need for the claimant to prove that it has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to his/her reputation. [Section 1(1), Defamation Act 2013]. A statement might be totally untrue and utterly malicious but, as far as the law is concerned, it's not automatically defamatory. The 'serious harm' test, which was introduced by the 2013 Act, is quite a stringent one and many attempts to prove defamation, which might previously have succeeded, are now likely to fall at that hurdle.

Secondly, there's no legal aid for defamation cases. The reality is that it's impossible to sue for defamation unless you've got (and are prepared to risk) at least a five-figure sum in your bank account. (The only exception here might be when someone else is prepared to take a case on, on behalf of the claimant. An example might be a teaching union who're prepared to back an action by one of their members against a parent who has made a defamatory statement which could prove detrimental to that teacher's career).

[pat2604]

Good answer from Gromit. I would also advise Bobbi to do the same and not bring it to attention. Then perhaps it will stop. It's all got very silly and let's this site down I'm not leaving because I like using AB. But I have tried to help without taking any sides.

[gulliver1]

Apg, just let it go , some of the posters on here are more to be pitied than Blamed ,...... just let it go.

[dannyk13]

Anne, adding fuel to the fire is not helpful.

[ABSpareEditor]

This thread is now closed.