Internet Libel - be cautious!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Internet Libel - be cautious!
THE first libel case against a British internet service provider has been settled out of court in a development that could have serious consequences for the online industry.
Yesterday the first of two actions brought by Dr Laurence Godfrey, a physicist, against Demon Internet over defamatory messages was due to be heard in the High Court. But before the case started, Demon, now owned by the Scottish telecommunications company Thus, announced that it had reached a settlement.
The decision marked a humiliating climbdown for Demon, which earlier said that it was fighting Mr Godfrey's claims on behalf of the internet industry and in the interests of free speech. But in a statement after the settlement, it said: "We can now draw a line under this issue and focus on serving our customers and building our business."
Demon will pay Mr Godfrey £15,000 damages plus costs. Mr Godfrey's solicitors, Bindman and Partners, said outside court that his costs were £230,000, with Demon's likely to be similar.
The cases centred on messages posted to internet discussion groups on a part of the network called Usenet. These discussion areas, or newsgroups, in which anyone can place messages or respond to comments, are known for the forthright opinions exchanged within them. A verb, "to flame", has been coined to describe the sometimes searing language used during debates.
Mr Godfrey sued Demon in 1997 because he claimed that it had done nothing to remove a message in the soc.culture.thai newsgroup that had been forged to make it look as if it had been put there by Mr Godfrey. Demon offered its customers access to that newsgroup and hundreds of others. Mr Bishop said: "It was squalid, obscene and defamatory of Dr Godfrey."
In July 1998 another posting, this time originating from one of Demon's customers, made further defamatory allegations about Mr Godfrey. That posting, said Mr Bishop, appeared in the uk.legal newsgroup, which has a much wider readership in Britain.
Internet service providers are usually not held responsible under British law for the millions of messages posted by people to the Usenet discussion groups because there are too many to police. But Mr Godfrey's lawyers said that this defence was not applicable because Demon had been told repeatedly about the messages.
After the brief hearing, Mr Godfrey said in a statement: "I am delighted with the result. It is sad that it has taken more than three years of sustained effort to redress a wrong that could so easily have been avoided by Demon and to extract an apology from them."
The result could have implications for all internet service providers in Britain. They may now decide to play safe and remove any posting to a Usenet discussion forum about which they receive a complaint.
Demon said it was convinced that the law had not kept pace with the development of the internet. It said it was planning to work with the rest of the industry to lobby for the law to be modernised.
Yesterday the first of two actions brought by Dr Laurence Godfrey, a physicist, against Demon Internet over defamatory messages was due to be heard in the High Court. But before the case started, Demon, now owned by the Scottish telecommunications company Thus, announced that it had reached a settlement.
The decision marked a humiliating climbdown for Demon, which earlier said that it was fighting Mr Godfrey's claims on behalf of the internet industry and in the interests of free speech. But in a statement after the settlement, it said: "We can now draw a line under this issue and focus on serving our customers and building our business."
Demon will pay Mr Godfrey £15,000 damages plus costs. Mr Godfrey's solicitors, Bindman and Partners, said outside court that his costs were £230,000, with Demon's likely to be similar.
The cases centred on messages posted to internet discussion groups on a part of the network called Usenet. These discussion areas, or newsgroups, in which anyone can place messages or respond to comments, are known for the forthright opinions exchanged within them. A verb, "to flame", has been coined to describe the sometimes searing language used during debates.
Mr Godfrey sued Demon in 1997 because he claimed that it had done nothing to remove a message in the soc.culture.thai newsgroup that had been forged to make it look as if it had been put there by Mr Godfrey. Demon offered its customers access to that newsgroup and hundreds of others. Mr Bishop said: "It was squalid, obscene and defamatory of Dr Godfrey."
In July 1998 another posting, this time originating from one of Demon's customers, made further defamatory allegations about Mr Godfrey. That posting, said Mr Bishop, appeared in the uk.legal newsgroup, which has a much wider readership in Britain.
Internet service providers are usually not held responsible under British law for the millions of messages posted by people to the Usenet discussion groups because there are too many to police. But Mr Godfrey's lawyers said that this defence was not applicable because Demon had been told repeatedly about the messages.
After the brief hearing, Mr Godfrey said in a statement: "I am delighted with the result. It is sad that it has taken more than three years of sustained effort to redress a wrong that could so easily have been avoided by Demon and to extract an apology from them."
The result could have implications for all internet service providers in Britain. They may now decide to play safe and remove any posting to a Usenet discussion forum about which they receive a complaint.
Demon said it was convinced that the law had not kept pace with the development of the internet. It said it was planning to work with the rest of the industry to lobby for the law to be modernised.
