A funny thing happened on the way to the forum

Whether or not Ulrika Jonsson knew how much consternation and disruption would be caused by the publication of her autobiography is open to debate.

One thing that's guaranteed, though, is that she could never have guessed the implications of the subsequent naming of a man in connection with rape allegations made in that book.

I'm not talking about the damage done to at least one career, or the anguish caused to the family and friends of the man named. Nor am I talking about the implications for the media which went on to repeat the allegation.

As I write it's still not clear whether this person can be named without fear of legal repercussions, in spite of the widespread gossip and media speculation in the days and weeks since.

Rather, I'm speaking of implications for the countless forum and bulletin board owners who have realised the precarious nature of their positions.

They are, to all intents and purposes, publishers in their own right and, without keeping a careful eye what their members write, they too are liable to prosecution for libel.

This was clearly on the minds of the administrators of Media UK, a vibrant UK-based online forum.

On the day the news broke, forum guide Phil Easton posted the following, reminding members of the legal position: "The person concerned has not, at the time of writing, been charged with any offence. Therefore, the legal advice we have been given is that we don't mention the name.

"To do so - even through light hearted or smart-arse comments (including deliberately mis-spelling the person's name) - places Media UK in a very difficult situation."

For many people, the first they knew of the allegation was not from television, radio or even the press, but from reading it on an online news service.

This raises a further issue. Aggregation services are constantly trawling news feeds for delivery to permanently connected desktops and could arguably be considered yet another publisher.

Likewise, Google, which caches pages, and archive.org, which copies and stores entire websites, will now hold potentially libellous pages on their servers, which will be available well beyond the life of the original postings.

The UK's first high-profile online libel case cost Demon Internet £15,000 in compensation and far more in legal costs for failing to remove defamatory statements from a site it hosted.

It was a shock to many when they discovered that a site or service provider was in the same boat as a newspaper.

But, while still leaving you at the mercy of the law, some simple common sense can do a lot to strengthen your case should you ever be taken to court over postings made to a site you own or run.

Bloggers with comment links, take note. It's paramount to keep an eye on what is posted to the site. Don't wait for someone to complain, as it could be too late.

If you can be seen to have taken what the law terms 'reasonable care' and removed or censored potentially libellous comments you are already in an eminently better position.

This was illustrated by Patten and Mervis, writing in The Guardian on 23 May 2002.

Their piece examined the fallout from retired teacher Jim Murray's successful court action against former pupil Jonathan Spencer over postings the latter had made on the Friends Reunited website.

It made the point that by pulling the offending comments as soon as it had been notified, Friends Reunited saved itself a costly court appearance and successfully shifted the burden entirely onto Spencer's shoulders.

Second, and perhaps most importantly of all, it is vital to ensure that your visitors know the obligations incumbent upon them before they post to your site.

Section one of the Defamation Act 1986, as Pattern and Mervis outlined, is designed to protect publishers and distributors of content from legal action if they take reasonable steps to avoid the publication of defamatory material in this way.

Unfortunately, to use this as a successful defence you must practically declare that you are doing precisely the opposite.

To make it clear that you are monitoring and moderating every posting places the ball firmly in your court. To declare that messages are often published without first being cleared, though, will bolster your position.

To quote Media UK's terms and conditions: 'Media UK does not actively monitor the contents of every posted messages [sic] and is not responsible for any messages posted.'

With such a clause you can better argue that, by removing comments once they have been drawn to your attention by a third party, you have acted reasonably.

Few people appreciate how much time and effort is required to run a successful forum.

Few blog writers realise that simply flying off on a two-week holiday, trusting your visitors not to post libellous comments beneath your existing entries, could be enough to see you pounced on by lawyers on your return.

With such a twisted law it's not surprising that the outcomes of libel cases are so difficult to predict.

Caution and common sense, then, are the watchwords for us all. After all, when allegations are made is it not just the accused that could find themselves in the dock.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!