Taxi Driver Online

For those people who are unfamiliar with the laws of Defamation I have taken the liberty to post the Latest case law on the subject. I have done this so that those who sail close to the wind of protracted abuse will know that their comments are not immune from legal redress.

This case is just one of many that the courts have upheld over the years so don't think it is unique?

Regards

JD

March 2006 UKIP candidate wins £10,000 for internet libel

By Philippe Naughton and PA News

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 02,00.html

A prominent member of the UK Independence Party won an unprecedented £10,000 in libel damages today from a woman who waged an abusive campaign against him on an internet bulletin board.

Michael Keith Smith, who contested the Portsmouth North constituency at the last general election, brought High Court proceedings against Tracy Williams, who was a contributor to the same Yahoo! discussion board.

Ms Williams, of Tomlinson Close, Oldham, Lancashire, used a pseudonym to post claims that the 53-year-old chartered surveyor was a "[edited by admin]", a sexual offender, a racist bigot and a ****.

Addressing him as "Lardarse" or "Lardbrain", she also alleged that he had sexually harassed a female co-worker, had been charged with soliciting boys and cottaging and that he was a sexual deviant of the most perverted kind.

In June 2004, Mr Keith Smith, of Castle Street, Portchester, Fareham, Hants, obtained a court order requiring the site operator to disclose Ms Williams’s identity. Legal proceedings then started which only served to provoke her into more "frenzied abuse", said Judge Alistair Macduff.

He said that Ms Williams, who was not in court and did not file a defence to the action, had not sought to justify her statements which were clearly seriously defamatory. They continued well into 2005.

Assessing damages, he said that Mr Keith Smith, who had given expert evidence in the courts and served on committees for charities and schools, had a reputation of some integrity.

He said that although the libels were available to the whole world through the internet, it was likely that few people had read them and many of those who did would have dismissed them as "ramblings".

Nevertheless, he awarded Mr Keith Smith £5,000 general damages plus £5,000 aggravated damages to reflect the way Ms Williams - who had met a request for an apology with contempt - had behaved.

He granted an injunction preventing the publication of the same or similar libels and ordered Ms Williams to pay the costs of the action, which Mr Keith Smith put at £7,200.

It is believed to be the first time that the High Court has awarded damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet bulletin board, although a retired teacher won £1,250 in damages at Lincoln County Court in May 2002 for comments posted about him on the website Friends Reunited by a former pupil.

Mark Thomson, a partner at libel specialists Carter-Ruck, said that there had been many similar complaints about defamation on the internet. But he said: "Most of these cases go away quite quickly - people pull down the allegation - so it's quite rare that people actually sue over internet comments."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such as?

ahhhhhhhh you are entertaining lol

You think so?

I'm surprised the motely crew are still in the dark? One wonders how long it will be before someone whispers those magic words in there ears?

Regards

JD

I have know doubt you know as little about the subject in question as you do about the Edinburgh Taxi trade?

Has that put a smile on your face?

lol

JD

So if I come on here as 'Bigboycabby' and abuse a character called 'dusty bin' with lots of names, and accuse him/her of being a liar, is this defamination?

I would suggest the people behind the sydonyms would have to be known first, otherwise all you seem to have is anonymous people abusing other unknown people?

It would make a great case if it ever came to a county court though, Dusty turning up in the Bin costume, against a cliff top country cottage cut out.

Quite possibly.

Which is why many posters have such daft names, and why thick 'see you next Tuesdays' like Nigel from the liars, and the pillock 'Old t*at from York' moan about people not using there real names.

_________________
IDFIMH

Hiding behind a nick name does not give you imunity from our defamation laws. It would appear that after all that has been written on this site you still haven't grapsed the basic element of online defamation. Using an alias did not protect miss Williams from conviction, did it?

Having disposed of your first assumption that the offender can safely hide behind an alias, leaves us with just the second element of your post to consider, does it not?

I'll leave you time to ponder on that?

Regards

JD

You still haven't made it clear how an anonymous poster, whose identity is unknown can abuse another anonymous person?

Please explain further.

I think your missing your opposite numbers to much Jim, you seem to go into a defensive position much much quicker than you used to.

As you said, Keith Smith made no attempt to hide his identity or who he was or what party he belonged to.

However if he had been an anonymous contributer to that yahoo forum, how could Williams 'abuse' him personaly which led to the action?

I see your point, but if you said that The Times was publishing lies, would it have no locus? On the contrary, newspapers regularly sue for defamation.

And if you defamed one of its columnists who used a pseudonym, would that columnist have no locus just because his/her real name wasn't used?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Forget Keith Smith. An anonymous poster made defamotory alegations against him. It turned out that Miss Williams was of the opinion that she could freely defame Mr Smith without fear of being exposed, however she didn't realise that the law is in place to serve the interests of justice and it was that law which forced the revelation of her ip. Now your assumption had two parts to it, the first part is that you assume an anonymous poster is immune from the laws of defamation, you said this,

So if I come on here as 'Bigboycabby' and abuse a character called 'dusty bin' with lots of names, and accuse him/her of being a liar, is this defamination?

I think you need to realise that it doesn't matter what name you use, your comments are not immune from legal redress. Hiding behind a nick whether it be bigboycabby or something else, it will not protect you from the law. Do you agree with that?

So that leaves us with the second element of your assumption, defaming a person who "you" only know as a nickname but you conveniently forget, that there may be many others who personally know the person behind the nick? Don't assume that just because you don't know the name behind the nick, that others don't know it?

You have little option other than to accept the first point because it is fact, the second point you can ponder for a while.

Regards

JD

I think its going / has gone a little too far all of this, its one thing to take the p*ss a little, quite another to be vindictive with it.

I know I have taken the micky out of people but to be fair the method used was so ridiculous only a fool would take it seriously and to be fair I have had it thrown back in my direction.

If I have upset anyone personally I am more than willing to apologise.

Although the X factor jibes and I'm a celebrity ones were in my opinion pure comedy

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Okay you've upset me yah [edited by admin] and I do take it seriously. Now apologise or I will sue the as* off you

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"