Chatrooms etc are subject to libel law((UK/GB)

He got his lawyers to force the site administration to give the identity then sued after being called a nazi, his wife a prostitute and him being on the sex offenders list.

Ihope this works

guardian.co.uk/technology>>

Freedom of speech on the net questioned after libel award for comments in a Chat-room


Chatroom users, bloggers and contributors to Internet forums and other Internet-based message boards are warned. Their opinions could be the origin of a libel action against them.

Michael Keith-Smith, a former Conservative Party member issued a claim for libel after being called a "nazi", "racist bigot" and "nonce" during a debate in an internet forum on the war in Iraq. Although accusations like these are common on the internet, Mr Keith-Smith decided to pursue this matter as he believed that "It was a matter of principle" and that he just "did not see why they should be allowed to get a way with it", subsequently he sough enforcement of his right to honour.

After an investigation to discover the real identity of the chat-room users who insulted him, Mr Keith-Smith decided to begin court action against them by means of two different libel claims.

One of these actions was actually settled before trial for the amount of £30,000. However the second action reached the court, which pronounced in favour of Mr Keith-Smith, awarding damages in the sum of £10,000 together with £7,200 representing costs and the obligation for the defendant to never repeat such allegations against Mr Keith-Smith.

This case is one of the few defamation cases between private individuals to go to court as usually the parties endeavour to settle before trial.

However the true relevance of the present case resides on the fact that it is the only precedent so far in which the complained words are posted on an internet chat-room and because of the fact that the court applied the laws of libel as just they would if the comments were published in a magazine or newspaper.

As a result, the outcome of this case is a clear warning for those using chat-rooms or posting comments on forums, message boards and blogs all over the internet.

This case has also originated a bitter argument between those that understand that this is just the normal application of the laws of libel (which already applied to traditional media) to the world wide web.

On the other side, some consider that the present case will trigger a wider debate about whether the libel law can apply to a debate moderated in a chat-room or blog, which have limited circulation and which are self-moderated.

There are also very important issues pending to resolve that are not clear after the court decision in the present case, such as the extent of the liability of the Internet Service Providers (ISP) and the validity of ISP's disclaimers of liability in relation to opinions posted by its users.

In any case, to avoid further complications it would be highly advisable for the ISP, or message boards owners to have a record of the users by requesting registration prior posting any comment.


Francisco Pazo Couto