Take a look at http://www.peteconnolly.co.uk/blog/archives/000110.html

The whole sordid business was short and nasty, but he backd down in the end, TF. If he hadn’t, I don’t know what I would have done.

I am not going to say whether your guess was correct or not - this time I am doing this to protect you.
You said:

using a case in which the blogger was clearly in the wrong is a rather stupid thing to do

This statement potentially opens you up to a libel case being taken against you by the blogger in question (and me too as the host of the libellous comment).

Are you now starting to see the point I am trying to make?

This was an assumption on my part and should have read:
“Tom read the posts in question, and you believe you read the same posts.”

I don’t actually remember reading anything about the events you mentioned previously and so am not in any position to guess who is involved.

It is not necessary for a person claiming to be defamed to show that he was in fact lowered in the eyes of others and suffered loss as a result, only that the statement was of a type which tended to do so.

and

it is for the defendant to prove the truth of the statement; all defamatory statements are presumed to be false.

and

Given that libel actions, alone amongst civil proceedings, are heard in front of a jury, such a defence is high-risk and unpredictable at best.

These are the issues being discussed. The case in point only brought these issues to Tom’s attention.

Tom read the posts in question, so did you. Tom feels they were not defamatory, you feel they were. That highlights the problem with bringing a case like this before a jury.

tom - i’ll take that to mean that we are talking about the same incident.

This is not something I do lightly but I really don’t want to be incurring the kind of legal costs a high court case would entail.

If you do wish to take part in this discussion, please keep the discussion in the abstract and don’t refer to companies by name.

Thanks,

Tom.

The post isn’t about an individual case at all, it’s about the law as it applies to what you might post on your blog about another individual or company.

It was clear to me from the original post that the issue being discussed is the potential threat to me if I decide to post about others, particularly if I am critical of them.

It was also clear to me that the person involved in the example that brought this to Tom’s attention did not want to be identified.

Why can’t you respect that?

is an interesting coincidence that all the [name removed] posts have been pulled from the [name removed] blog? must get in touch with [name removed] and find out the reason for that one …

if the case is the one i think it was, then the blogger was way out of line in what he said and what he allowed to be set. i am all too happy to support and defend the innocent, but the guilty need a good slap around the ear

IP, I am not sure you are thinking of the right blogger - the one I am referring largely re-printed articles already in the press and quoted results of research. In any case, “the guilty need a good slap…” the point of my mail was that to get a chance to prove your innocence, you have to spend tens of thousands in legal fees in the high court - you are guilty until and unless you can afford to prove yourself innocent.

As it says in DRI’s libel pamphlet:

it is for the defendant to prove the truth of the statement; all defamatory statements are presumed to be false.

no. if the case is the one i think it was, then the blogger was way out of line in what he said and what he allowed to be set. i am all too happy to support and defend the innocent, but the guilty need a good slap around the ear.

that is one of the biggest problems with this post. it’s screaming “freedom of speech! freedom of speech!” without saying what was said. there’s enough clues for those with memories, but nothing specific. freedom of speech *must* have limits. otherwise it’s meaningless. stupid blog postings are as damaging to the wish for a relaxation of libel laws as the sort of reporting that accompanied the death of liam lawlor. if we *really* want the libel laws to be relaxed, then we’re *all* going to have to adhere to higher standards.

Believe me, if someone wants to shut you up, they’ll misinterpret anything. Anyway, material doesn’t have to be misinterpreted to ground a libel case, it only has to potentially damage a person’s reputation. Whether the material is true or not doesn’t come up until you get to court, by which time you’re several thousand euros worse off in legal costs.

“If your’e commenting on a legal case or re-posting confidential information (I’m not saying that was the case here … just giving an example) then maybe you could be taken to court about it (whether rightly or wrongly). ”

These are concerns too, but are quite seperate from libel. Commenting on a legal case isn’t all that dangerous, unless you suggest that someone was lying in eviedence, prejudice the outcome, or the like. As for reposting confidential information, you almost certainly will get sued, and unless your a whistle-blower type, quite desrvedly.

Could we possibly make a pledge using Pledgebank.com to buy group insurance if a certain number chip in a certain amount?

Bloggers do have to beware of what they write. The prevailing view seems to be that blogging is just like having a conversation in a pub, only on-line, but that’s simply not the case - it’s open for anyone to read / join and it’s recorded. That’s where the legal problems begin.

A simple list with examples of do’s and don’ts would be nice though, just to be sure!