Formerly Anonymous Internet Libeller Loses Court Case

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1444515,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/ne...1444515,00.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The ability of users of internet bulletin boards to remain anonymous was placed in serious doubt yesterday after Terry Smith, chief executive of City firm Collins Stewart Tullett, won a landmark libel settlement. Mr Smith and his firm won "substantial" damages from Jeremy Benjamin, a fund manager who posted false allegations on the Motley Fool web site using the invented web name "analyser71". . . Mr Benjamin was traced after Mr Smith's lawyers, the City firm Rosenblatt, won a court order forcing Motley Fool to reveal what details it held on "analyser71", including the identification number of his computer and his email address. . . . As well as undisclosed damages, Mr Benjamin has agreed to pay the claimants' legal costs, which are understood to be three times as much. . . .The Benjamin case is thought to be possibly the first internet-related case in which a defendant has settled publicly after making comments anonymously."</i><br /><br />Only forty nine people actually read what Jeremy Benjamin posted, yet it was enough to land him in a whole world of trouble. So, the implication of this case for all for all bulletin board users is; play nicely. (Not that it should be a problem for you guys. ;-))

[DaleReeck]

Good. Too many people try to hide behind a "handle" while saying the most outrageous stuff. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with using a handle on a web site instead of your name (there are certain personal security issues with that), but its the people who think that anonymity gives them the right to be idiots or even slanderous that are the problem.

[bjornkeizers]

Hey - I for one like being slanderous! :-) This certainly won't stop people from speaking their mind, whether they're right or wrong. It certainly won't stop me.

[Paragon]

" As well as undisclosed damages, Mr Benjamin has agreed to pay the claimants' legal costs, which are understood to be three times as much. . . .


One can only wonder sometimes if the point to all this is the legality of the issue or...the legal *fees*. :(

[ombu]

O.K., here I go:

- I love Toshiba's customer service.

- It's no big deal leaving iPaq's owners without OS upgrades.

- Who cares about an "x" button that really closes apps?

- After all, a 3D surface graph isn't needed in PExcel.

Regards,

Faky Liarson.

:twisted:

[Deus]

I have a hard time understandning how slander (spoken defamation) is not a violation of free speech. Why can't someone voice their opinion of someone? If its bad its bad. So I can't say anything unless its nice?

I have little to no legal knowledge on this. Someone help me out here.

[DaleReeck]

I have a hard time understandning how slander (spoken defamation) is not a violation of free speech. Why can't someone voice their opinion of someone? If its bad its bad. So I can't say anything unless its nice?

I have little to no legal knowledge on this. Someone help me out here.

There's a difference between an opinion and lies or false accusations. Saying Bob Johnson is a jerk is an opinion. Saying that Bob Johnson robbed a bank is a lie. Big difference. Mr. Benjamin apparently crossed that line.

[Deus]

;)

[davenicholls]

I have a hard time understandning how slander (spoken defamation) is not a violation of free speech. Why can't someone voice their opinion of someone? If its bad its bad. So I can't say anything unless its nice?

I have little to no legal knowledge on this. Someone help me out here.

In most cases the right of free speech was built into law to ensure that citizens could criticise the government without fear of reprisals, although generally it does give protection for wider expression of opinions.

However, the right to free speech is usually conditioned by other laws, for example laws to prevent racism or other discrimination, also individuals (and most companies) have rights which allow them to protect their reputations. If something untrue is said which materially affects that reputation (loss of sales etc) then an action for damages can be undertaken. Under such an action it is the responsibility of the person who make the original statement to prove that it is true.

Cheers

Dave

[Deus]

Larry Flint got away with saying the Falwell (sp) slept with his mother in an outhouse?? That was falls under this description. What am I missing?

[Jon Westfall]

I think the implication here is that not only should we play nicely, but we should be aware of the slippery slope that online rants can take. If I start posting about my hatred of company x's products, and eventually that transfers to some statement such as "Company X forced Company Y to carry its junk products" or "Company X threatened to beat up my grandmother (ok... exaggeration)", it starts to become an issue of libel and not opinion. Simply adding the line "Would Probably" (as in "Company X would probably force Company Y" could go a long way to saving someone should Company X be vengeful enough to take them to court!

[davenicholls]

Larry Flint got away with saying the Falwell (sp) slpet with his mother in an outhouse??

I'm not too familiar with this case (I'm in the UK where it wasn't as relevant or high profile) but a quick search did turn up the fact that Flynt's original cartoon was satirical. In the UK that would make a difference, I assume that it did in the US as well.

Cheers

Dave

[Kati Compton]

Yes - satire makes a difference. Otherwise we couldn't have Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show.