A political argument that erupted in a remote corner of cyberspace and descended into vicious name-calling could lead to a spate of libel actions by contributors to internet message boards, the man at the centre of the case claimed yesterday.

The dark side of the blogosphere was revealed by a libel action brought by Michael Keith-Smith, a former Conservative party member who stood for Ukip in Portsmouth North at the last election. He said he was moved to sue after a woman with whom he was debating the merits of military action in Iraq began a campaign of name-calling that started by describing him as "lard brain" and culminated in falsely labelling him a "Nazi", a "racist *****" and a "nonce".....

More here -> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,1737445,00.html

Scuro, I'd say this was getting silly, but it's been silly for a while now. There's any number of reasons why no one here needs to be at all concerned.

1) It's expensive to sue for libel, and most cases don't win (as far as I know).

2) ADDF being an international forum, it would probably be tough to get any court to assume jurisdiction. We're from all over.

3) This is in the UK, what you linked. Looking at the regional forums area here, I'd have to assume ADDF is based out of the U.S. So let's assume for a sec that a U.S. court would assume jurisdiction. As I understand it, internet libel cases that have been brought before U.S. courts have faired badly; especially if they were from things like newsgroups and message boards.

Here's a Supreme Court case from 2003 (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-03-11-net-libel_x.htm). Note that the woman claiming defamation WORKED in the field in which her credentials had been insulted, and she STILL didn't win.

The UK win actually strikes me as pretty unusual.

4) The quoted insults here were far stronger than anything that is allowed on ADDF. Look at what you quoted, it bleeped part of it out automatically.

5) Not to mention, it's unlikely ANYTHING said on this site will fit the legal definition of libel. This (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=libel) is dictionary.com's definition, which is a bit simplistic, but it's got the basic idea. As well as being a false statement, said statement MUST be proven to be damaging to business or reputation. Here's (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=||||) a longer definition.

Do you think anything said on here will fit that definition? I think not.

What protect your from libel? The following:

1. It's true. (Duh.)

2. The defamation is too general.

3. It's a statement of opinion. Opinions only become libel when they imply underlying knowledge.

So. Let's look at the quote that got you so het-up in the other thread:

Who I see is having the social dysfunctions are the researchers who would purposely set a bunch of kids up for rejection simply because they have ADD and then claim research study, NOW THAT (IMHO) is social dysfunction! Exactly what kind of disorder do these research people have…I bet it is harder to pronounce than ADD!
Do you see the problem with declaring that libel? It's:

1) Too general. ("Researchers" cannot be sued. "Researchers" is too large a group.)

2) An opinion. ("Exactly what kind of..[snip]...I bet." The first part easily rules out that the poster claims underlying knowledge, and the latter part makes it obviously opinion.)


JUST STOP.

Although I WILL say that name-calling could get you warned! Or banned! Just not sued. :D

Brit libel law is much more stringent and archiac than US law as evidenced by the case BD points out

Contrast this to the McLibel case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1415304,00.html#article_continue):

Where activists were sued for libel by McDonalds for handing out leaflets with false claims that McDs might be bad for your health and for the environment.

The nerve of those viscious activists!

See this comparison of the different legal systems in their treatment of ISPs: (http://www.isp-planet.com/business/libel.html)

The outcome of the lawsuit [Demon] means that the assumed responsibility of U.K. ISPs will be the opposite of their US counterparts. The U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia recently threw out a libel case against America Online on the grounds that an ISP could not be considered the publisher of statements made by its customers.

And here's a difference in the British treatment of intellectual libel (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Evans/Observer180301.html):

Where a Holicaust denier sued an historian for libel.

As Guttenplan puts it, Irving's complaint against Lipstadt was that: 'When [Irving] writes that Hitler had no knowledge of the Final Solution, [ ] what he is doing is no different from... an archaeologist who doubts whether the Greeks and Trojans really went to war over Helen of Troy.' His claims that the death camps are a fiction are legitimate and to suggest otherwise is libellous.

This is something that you couldn't successfully bring to court in the US.

Then again, I could be wrong, so sue me!

Here in Japan, libel law is really insane. You can be sued for libel even if what you say is true -- the only criterion is that a public statement harms the "good name" of the plaintiff.

It was basically enacted to fight Japan's serious problem with sokaiya racketeers, who threaten to show up at companies' board meetings and air their dirty laundry unless they get some payoff.

I'm no lawyer, I just thought this was topical because it is an issue that was recently discussed on the board.