Tuesday, 9 December 2008

M'Learned Friends

Alex Hilton is in a right state. He’s being sued for something someone wrote on his blog and has a massive legal bill he can’t pay.

This is interesting, I thought, as I have numerous moonbats and fruitcakes wandering in without wiping their feet properly and I don’t pre moderate comments. So where do I stand if one of Dolly’s anonyboys writes that the Conservative MP for Fulchester likes to suck off choirboys?

I’ve done some research.

Now the Right Honourable Gentleman could certainly try and sue me. He’d have to prove that I sanctioned its publication though and I didn’t, because I don’t premoderate. I’d certainly remove it if it weren’t true after it was brought to my attention of course. I do try and read all the comments on my blog for this reason.

So what does the law say?

“Under the Defamation Act 1996, a website host will have a defence to a claimfor libel if he can show that (i) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, (ii) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and (iii) he did not know and had no reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of the defamatory statement. The defence under the E-commerce Regulations is expressed in similar terms.

I don’t publish comments, Blogger does. The author of those comments does.

I see an important argument being that if someone sprays “Gordon is a cock” up your garage wall, you would remove it but you are not liable for libel merely by the fact you have a garage wall.

In fact, if you pre moderate your comments, you are in greater danger of being sued, because you are acting as an editor. Take note Kerry.

PS Gordon really is a HUGE COCK


The Penguin said...

Mr Hilton should approach his rich friends amongst the champagne socialists, would be a drop out of the trough for them. Ed and Mrs Balls, Lord Mandymort, Geoff Robinson, Polly Twatbee...

The Penguin

MP for Fulchester said...

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!!

Shirking From Home said...

Gordon is indeed a cock. I would expect any reasonable judge to agree with this statement in court. He's been such a cock for so long there's shit loads of a precedent there.

Is it rational to hate someone so much, someone who I have never met, nor wish to?

Anonymous said...

Even if you're innocent, as Hilton seems to be, you need to pay a solicitor and/or barrister to turn up in court and defend you.

Presumably, they'll want to be paid in advance. If you can't get your costs off your opponent, you'll be left holding a substantial bill.

man in the street said...

Is this where that cunt Peter Hain goes for a quick hand shandy?

The Penguin said...



Education, Edcuation, Education.

The Penguin

Dick the Prick said...

Guess we better just stick with calling people cunts then - that can't be libelous surely.

Barrister: " M'Lud, I put it to you that my client is not a cunt."

Lord Justice Felch: "Your client is one Geoff Hoon Sir. Case dismissed. Now off you fuck, I'm off to pop me nappy on down at Mistress Zelga's dungeon."

Ampers said...

(iii) he did not know and had no reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of the defamatory statement

I see a weakness in your defence here, Holborn! All your articles invite ribald comments lol

K.McEgan said...

Met Hilton a year ago-he seemed OK.Can you tell the cunnii at the MyT site what you've just said?

David said...

From some advice which is probably worth almost as much as I paid for it:

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation: if what you say is true, it cannot be defamatory. Another defense to defamation is proving that the statement was an opinion, not an assertion of a fact.

Which proved there are 646 cunts in sw1

Trixy said...

That's actually rather useful to know. I had to moderate my comments because I had BNP nutters invading my blog with their bullshit. This was then followed by people commenting on a legal case writing statements which contained falsehoods, hence I felt by not publishing them I was actually protecting myself.

Am in something of a dilemma now: I don't want the BNP covering my blog with their insults and falsehoods but nor do I want to get sued by some zealous MP with tax payers money to splash around.

Trixy said...

On the case of Mr Hilton, he was absolutely vile about a friend of mine to the extent it cost him his job.

What goes around, comes around, perhaps?

poor bloody taxpayer said...

No sympathy for someone who is begging the 'comrades' for help. Commie filth.

charcoal said...

"he took reasonable care in relation to its publication"
That reasonable care would be pre-moderation which you don't do. And don't forget that any state employee you piss off will be suing you with public money.

lilith said...

charcoal, surely reasonable care would be to check your comments and respond to complaints.

Old Holborn said...

Lilith. Exactly. I check the garage door every day for libellous graffiti. Not my fault if some loon writes "Mandybum sucks cock" at 3am in neon orange spray paint all over it, is it?

No court in the land would convict me of Libel if they did.

JPT said...

I think the offending piece on Hilton's site was not a 'comment' but actually an article.
Surely that's a lot different?

Houdini said...

The problem OH is that is not what happened in that little cunt Hiltons case.

He is not being sued for comments made on his site, but on a whole article whoch was published on his site and with his permission as the person publishing had to have specific permission from the site owner, Hilton, to do so. He had full editorial control as the editor and owner of the site. A bit like the newspaper gets sued, and pays, and not the journalist.

I see an important argument being that if someone sprays “Gordon is a cock” up your garage wall, you would remove it but you are not liable for libel merely by the fact you have a garage wall

But if you gave them specific permission, and provided the garage wall for them along with paint, then what was written you must be liable for.

Don't be taken in by this little cunts shit trying to play the comments are not his card he has done this sort of thing before and been found wanting.

Anonymous said...

You'll be glad to hear that Fulchester crown court dissapeared in the mid 80's, as far as I can recall it only sat for half an hour each day 2-2.30pm.

So relax and carry on.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails