Balancing ‘freedom of expression’ and the ‘protection of reputation’
First off I have to thank the Guardian for publishing an interesting supplement on Digital Media Law as without this I’d have to pay some very expensive lawyers for their advice.
While I’m no lawyer it never-the-less seems obvious (to me) that behaviour online is governed by the same set of rules and expectations that effect and regulate our daily lives. Don’t for one second think, “I’m in a ‘virtual world’ so anything goes” - it doesn’t (2nd lifers take note)! This message was clearly set out, with examples, in every article in the Digital Law supplement and as these articles appear to be written by lawyers who work in this field I’m not about to challenge them.
Next it is worth noting that, regardless of how you created your online profile, you can be tracked. Any illegal action you take can and will be found out and, if it’s really bad, you will be prosecuted. It might take longer and the trail might be digital, but it is also virtually impossible to erase!
So what’s the point of this post? Well, I suppose my purpose is to address the genuine and real concern expressed by businesses on that what happens if someone posts a negative review.
Let’s start with some relevant case law.
1999 - Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited. “Once an ISP has been warned of the existence of a defamatory statement they most remove it or be liable for defamation” (You must tell us otherwise we don’t know to remove it)
2002 - Totalise plc v The Motley Fool Ltd. “Identification of website users must not be ordered if it unjustifiably invades their right to privacy” (We are not able to give you the name of the user who has criticised you, unless they have given consent or have been malicious)
2006 - Bunt v Tilly & Ors. “An ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the Internet is not a publisher” (We are not responsible for what our users say about you, they are)
2006 - Michael Keith-Smith v Tracey Williams. “The first UK example of damages awarded against an individual who posted defamatory remarks online” (If you post defamatory remarks about someone you can have damages awarded against you)
2007 - Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Limited and Others v Neal Hargreaves. ” The identity of online posters can be revealed if their right to freedom of expression and privacy is out-weighted by the reputation rights of their target” (This is probably one for the lawyers to decide)
In summary then:
- We respect the right of the individual to express their own opinions and are happy for them to do so, regardless of whether this good or bad.
- We respect the right of the business to protect their reputation. If a user posts a negative review this will be removed if this is defamatory or malicious.
- We will not pass on the user’s name or contact details unless consent has been given, or we have been advised to do so by lawyers.
I hope that’s clear.
If you haven’t done so already, now may be is a good time to read our Privacy Policy and Code of Conduct, as they relate to online behaviour, what we expect and what we will do if rules are broken.
Tags: freedom of expression, media law, negative reviews, privacy, protecting reputations