Post by james on Feb 24, 2015 23:39:06 GMT
I just wrote some of what is below in another context but it describes very substantial reductions in risk for online posting, even more so for web site operators, so posters here may find it of interest. One of the things that the Act was intended to do was greatly reduce the use of the UK as a jurisdiction for defamation claims by those from other countries, by imposing barriers to bringing and succeeding in actions.
If you haven't read it yet I recommend that you read the text of the Defamation Act 2013, the provisions of which entered force at the start of this year. In particular you may wish to consider whether something is likely to cause any business serious financial loss, which is the new minimum threshold for a business to start to bring a defamation claim. The writing about public interest, truth and honest opinion may also be relevant.
However, for moderators here it's most likely to be section 5. Operators of websites that is of most interest. Most notably the clear statement that "It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website", though there are some related obligations placed on site operators. In connection with that it would be very useful to read Complaints about defamatory material posted on websites: Guidance on Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 and Regulations. You should find that these things make life considerably easier for those responsible for this site, greatly reducing the prospect of action against them.
One of the interesting requirements of a notice of complaint to a web site operator is: "Confirmation that the complainant does not have sufficient information about the person who posted the statement to bring proceedings against that person". If a person writing here is a customer of a P2P firm it is quite likely that the firm already has sufficient information due to the standard identification requirements to open financial accounts, though that may not be so since aliases can be used that may be harder to link to a specific customer. There are then time limits, including a requirement to notify the poster of the complaint about their post within 48 business hours of receipt of the complaint. Following that are such things as ways for a poster to respond and how their details may be provided to the complainant.
I assume that the operators of this site will wish to provide addresses for complainants to use for notifications so that they can ensure that they receive the protection from legal action that they receive when they do so and comply with the other requirements.
If you haven't read it yet I recommend that you read the text of the Defamation Act 2013, the provisions of which entered force at the start of this year. In particular you may wish to consider whether something is likely to cause any business serious financial loss, which is the new minimum threshold for a business to start to bring a defamation claim. The writing about public interest, truth and honest opinion may also be relevant.
However, for moderators here it's most likely to be section 5. Operators of websites that is of most interest. Most notably the clear statement that "It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website", though there are some related obligations placed on site operators. In connection with that it would be very useful to read Complaints about defamatory material posted on websites: Guidance on Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 and Regulations. You should find that these things make life considerably easier for those responsible for this site, greatly reducing the prospect of action against them.
One of the interesting requirements of a notice of complaint to a web site operator is: "Confirmation that the complainant does not have sufficient information about the person who posted the statement to bring proceedings against that person". If a person writing here is a customer of a P2P firm it is quite likely that the firm already has sufficient information due to the standard identification requirements to open financial accounts, though that may not be so since aliases can be used that may be harder to link to a specific customer. There are then time limits, including a requirement to notify the poster of the complaint about their post within 48 business hours of receipt of the complaint. Following that are such things as ways for a poster to respond and how their details may be provided to the complainant.
I assume that the operators of this site will wish to provide addresses for complainants to use for notifications so that they can ensure that they receive the protection from legal action that they receive when they do so and comply with the other requirements.
