first, it’s not “charged” - it’s sued. Defamation, except in the fantastically rare context of criminal libel, is a civil matter.

And two, it’s not “implying”. It’s stating. The “Demon internet” case demonstrated that both forum operators and an ISP can be sued for defamation if they act as a channel for the publication of defamatory statements.

And that decision came after the Human Rights Act - which is the only appeal to “freedom of speech” that exists in English Law - came into effect. And it was upheld by the House of Lords, plus similar decisions have stood up at the European Court of Human Rights.
“

As I said, I’m sure M+A are considering the position of this thread in Anorak.

As for individuals, they’d come way down the line. Me, I ain’t got nothing to be sued for!

I”m not staying either, looks like everyone has gone. Just wanted to know if you have
read Increasingly Incredulous post implying that Anorak posters could be charged
with defamation. This forum is not exactly like the Press is it and I”m sure we can
call on Freedom of Speech if necessary.

Yes, I’m still here but keep thinking of going.

I’m sure they chose that photograph specially.

Are you still there, I really fell quite sick that the McCanns have got away with this, they were always threatening to sue somebody and could have sued the Express
months ago. the photo on the front page of tomorrow”s Express, shows the McCanns
at their most affectionate…….who chose that one!

I think it will be very difficult for the PJ to prove anything other than negligence
given that there is no body, the longer this goes on the less likely the interviews will
take place. I did paste this morning a post from Sky suggesting the PJ arrived in the
U.K. unannounced on 10th March, if true, all is not lost.

So, after all this speculation and months of posting , in my case not so long, there
is no closure and we will never know what happened to Madeleine…..sad.

So do we all pack up and go home, or find another topic to discuss, can”t think of any
one thing that would interest for so long, what am I going to do now if I lose my DJ?

It’s all down to the PJ and Portuguese authorities now. I hope they are strong enough to resist the high-priced McCann laywers and reluctant UK judiciary…

Good night Totje and everyone.

Plenty to look at tomorrow, no doubt.

For the first time ever, I will buy a copy of the Express tomorrow….well…perhaps not….don’t want to raise their sales by even one!

Night!

That”s a pretty cynical view, probably true though. Sympathy will now turn back
to the McCanns now and this might have been the reason for threatening to sue the
Press, knowing the re-interviews were/ are going to take place.

Express and Star both new from the very start that this payout was coming. It was in their budget when they decided to run the dramatic version of the stories (rather than attributing them). They knew the dramatic version would sell millions more copies (they did) and that even with the payout they would be miles better off.

Pure commerical decision. Paid off handsomely for both papers.
——————————————————

I tend to agree with that. I have wondered about that for months. It makes it even more disgraceful, doesn’t it? BUT what do we expect from these rags? Only sales count.

So you see it as a win-win situation?

I’m not so sure. It MIGHT just affect how they treat some people in future. After all, you can’t afford, in reputation terms, to be publishing front-page apologies too often.

They made a ruling very quickly after a person was arrested in the SM case.

The situation with the Express Newspapers decision is different, but the implications for our free speech here might be similar.

I await word from M+A which I expect will come fairly soon.

first, foreign papers…the case that’s significant is “Berezovsky vs. Forbes Magazine”; Boris Berezovsky succesfully sued the AMERICAN pulishers of Forbes magazine for defamation in an English court - this is despite him having only what was described as a “tenuous” connection to the UK. The House of Lords held that the case could be brought in a British court on the grounds that the magazine was distributed over here, and was hence accesible to readers in the UK. Now, since the likes of “24 Horas” and CdM publish via the web, and can be accessed here in the UK (indeed, copies are imported…). So far as I’m aware, it’s not been tested in an English court, but it has in other jurisdictions that follow similar forms (Hong Kong, for example - cases called “Investasia Ltd vs Another”, and Australia - “Dow Jones vs. Gutnick).

Presumably the same would apply to individual bloggers, but that’d need to be tested. There’s no obvious reason why it would be one iota different.

As to forums, the Berezovxky case makes it clear that the point of publication of the libel isn’t especially relevant - if it’s accesible to readers in the UK, and one or other of the parties has at least some connection with the UK, then a case can be brought (provided no case is brought in another relevant jurisdiction - given the feeble scale of damages in Portuguese defamation law, there would be very much second choice ). Add that to the “Demon” case, that makes it clear that operators of forums have the same duties and exposures as any other publisher, then whoever runs the forum is potentially in deep shit.

If I were the owner of either 3 “A”s, or (given some things that’ve been allowed to remain up on this site”, Anorak, I’d be making sure my archives were taken down very quickly (and hoping the McCanns lawyers hadn’t got copies), and talking to my solicitor about the best form of apology. Oh, and also from the “Demon” case - carefully listing the IP and e-mail addresses of all those that’d posted efamatory staements. Apparently, handing those over is held to be mitigation……

Thats the spirit!!