UK Facebook User's Name Appropriation Draws Huge Libel Suit 165
Slatterz links to a story which shows that nowadays, it's sometimes possible to find out whether someone is a dog on the Internet, excerpting: "A freelance photographer is facing a £22,000 bill after setting up a fake Facebook page that libelled a former classmate. Grant Raphael, a freelance photographer, set up a Facebook page in the name of former school friend Mathew Firsht and posted false information about his sexual and political preferences. He also set up another page for Firsht's television company, the latter entitled 'Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?' ... 'The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences,' media lawyer, Jo Sanders, of Harbottle & Lewis, told the BBC."
Profound news (Score:5, Insightful)
Libel is libel, even on the Internet.
Re:Profound news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referencing a bash.org quote?
This must be what happens when we don't develop a new /. meme once in a while.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, libel is hugely different on the internet. Want to draw attention to opposing opinions, launch a libel suit, want to create the impression that you have a hugely inflated opinion of your self worth - launch a libel suit, perversely enough, want the convince people that you have something to hide launch a libel suit and, finally want to convince people that you have more money than sense, launch a libel suit.
So there is a huge difference between 20th century print libel and 21st century internet libel
Re:Profound news (Score:5, Insightful)
If some dickhead with zero reputation is saying bad things about you on the Internet, sure, it's pointless to sue them for libel; in the US you might even have trouble proving damages. But if some dickhead is credibly impersonating you, using your own name and reputation to say false and derogatory things about you, that's a different matter. It would be worth suing to get an injunction if nothing else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But if some dickhead is credibly impersonating you, using your own name and reputation to say false and derogatory things about you, that's a different matter. It would be worth suing to get an injunction if nothing else.
The problem with that approach is the same problem that the MAFIAA are having - enforcement is nearly impossible. Sure *THIS* case was enforceable, but its like taking down an ftp site of mp3s, pre napster. Anyone who wanted to do it "right" can do so today using tools like Tor, its just a matter of escalation.
A problem that the MAFIAA has, that impersonation cases don't, is the general desire of people to commit the 'crime' - people inherently like to share, but far, far fewer are into malicious imperson
Re: (Score:2)
I think the general solution is teach people to "trust no one"
If the solution involves changing people's behavior (arguably impossible anyway), why not teach people to not be dicks instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. GP is an imbecile, karma whore or - my best guess - both.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was twitter, you'd already be dead.
If you were twitter, I'd already be dead.
Since neither of us is dead we're obviously not twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy doesn't have the problem that thousands or even millions of people are libelling him...
Now he does.
Re: (Score:2)
Im all for freespeech but impersonating someone isn't freespeech it's identity theft.
And if your livelihood depends on your reputation? (Score:5, Insightful)
The days of the Internet as some kind of Wild West where you can do and say whatever the fuck you want without having to take the consequences for it are coming to an end. If somebody want to be an asshole, he'd better be one anonymously from an Internet café... which shows just what a cowardly little shit he is.
A good many people depend on their good name for their living. Jerks who try to damage someone's ability to feed his children deserve to be punished.
Re:And if your livelihood depends on your reputati (Score:2)
The days of the Internet as some kind of Wild West where you can do and say whatever the fuck you want without having to take the consequences for it are coming to an end.
Wich is why we must act now to save it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Profound news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
That's because Americans are terrified of alcohol though. I don't know why people in the US are bleating pitifully about Islam when their Fundamentalist Christian overlords are utterly indistinguishible in almost every respect.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
They prefer detonating a truck load of fertilizer next to large office buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
while Islam teaches that killing Christians racks up points in heaven
Actually, it doesn't. The only Muslims who *do* say that are the Islamic equivalent of the "godhatesfags.com" mob.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What, even the Catholics?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Did you stop giving a shit, or are you trying to engage in clever reverse psychology?
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that twitter is Erris, and just tried to make one of the people who say "hey, he's sockpuppeting" look bad, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a douchefag, and so's my... er... husband!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No it isn't! Everything on the internet is different, and needs a special set of laws!
Re: (Score:2)
England is entirely different from the US in regard to libel. And at the other end of the stick L22,000 may not be much more than a slap on the wrist depending upon the guys ability to pay.
Frankly I think that England is a bit off the mark with their libel laws. Usually a sharp counter attack is enough to blow most would be bullies into the weeds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US, it means making derogatory statements (in written form) that are not factually true. Whereas in England it means walking on the cracks in the pavement (which is what they call a sidewalk) during the hours of darkness.
So yeah, entirely different is a perfect summary of the situation.
"Firsht" post! (Score:3, Funny)
Cue the "'Firsht' Post" jokes.
I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:5, Interesting)
But not as a specific 50-year-old man who actually exists. While I think we should all have the right to conceal our identity, we certainly shouldn't have the right to assume someone else's.
This is the least controversial thing I have ever written.
Re:I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose as a 50-year-old man and see if her ideas will be taken seriously on their own merits.
Funny, that usually goes in reverse.
Re:I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:5, Funny)
"Merits own their on seriously taken be will ideas her if see and man 50-year-old a as pose can girl 14-year-old a that thing good a it's think I"?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:4, Insightful)
"I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose as a 50-year-old man and see if her ideas will be taken seriously on their own merits.
No.
I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose her ideas and will be taken seriously on their own merits.
Yes.
If she's posing as a 50 year old man, then whatever she is saying isn't being taken on its own merits but under the assumption that she may be more qualified simply because she appears to be older and/or male.
Re: (Score:1)
But if she's posting as a 14 year old girl no one will take her seriously at all. Sometimes it's best to not even give out any information.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll take her absolutely seriously. It's a lot more important to listen to teenagers than 50 yo rambling farts. Teenagers are still discovering the world, can still be encouraged down the right path, and will impact the world a lot longer. Spending time listening to them, their fears, their ideas, their dreams, tells a lot more about the world we are going to live in than listening to someone born in 1958.
There are exceptions, of course, but generally this is my personal experience.
Disclaimer: I'm turning 4
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You just said that you will take the seriously because you can guide them. If you're listening to someone to determine the direction in which they are misguided, you're not listenting to them.
Re: (Score:1)
How on earth did you come to that conclusion from my post?
I recently became a parent, and I tell you, children are very smart and deserve our attentive ear and involved guidance.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm gonna assume that with an id of 171285, you are no longer a teenager.
I can tell you that if you are attentive to what teenagers say, and engage them in meaningful conversation, they will often ask for advice. Then, it is important to give them frank, honest advice, backing it up with sound and logical explanations, with a story to two from experience that illustrates the advice given.
This is what I meant by "involved guidance".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the fault of the person she is conversing with, and basically the point I was making.
I'll take a 14 year old girls, and a 50 year old mans opinion/statement with an equal amount of salt. the 14 year old may have spent 4 years learning a subject, the 50 year old may have spent 30 years on the same subject, however the 14 year old doesn't really have much else to think about but that subject, whereas the 50 year old has well established political and ideological standards, its all intertwined with his
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a rather disingenuous statement because we all make assumptions about speakers and very rarely can set aside natural bias. We are bombarded by too much information to process without some
Re: (Score:2)
For some perhaps, the only time I have preconceived bias, is if I have read or heard something they stated prior to the conversation at hand.
However, the first statement(s) made by each, has an influence on everything they say on the topic hence forth, with the exception of if they entered the conversation disgruntled from a prior event, or have a disposition to push buttons on first contact, and later described respectively so, that can change my opinion about their motives/etc.
But I have no reason to form
Re: (Score:1)
You should've posted as anon, then.
Re: (Score:2)
I like being able to post completely anonymously.
Agreed. Baning anonymous posting would be terrible. However, internet is a large place so it should be possible to have sites that require different types of authentication.
Right now it is easy to setup a site where you can post anonymously or with handles, but it is a pain in the ass to make a site where everyone are who they say they are.
I even like being able to misinform people about my identity. I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose as a 50-year-old man and see if her ideas will be taken seriously on their own merits.
The better solution is to not mention your age, gender or skincolor at all. If you want to be anonymous, be anonymous.
Lying about the most basic persona information to pr
Seems about right (Score:4)
While the UK libel laws are still in need of serious fixing, it looks like they got this one right.
Libel in Britain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Libel in Britain (Score:5, Informative)
Libel in Britain tends to be taken more seriously than in the US. There is no automatic right to free speech (except on Speaker's Corner, where even the slander laws can't touch you) and the penalties aren't gentle - the satirical magazine Private Eye found that one out.
Okay. Let's clear this sucker up. For the last damn time (in my dreams, eh?), your right to free speech in the US is your right to free speech AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. You do not have the right to libel anyone or anything you want. The Constitution protects your right to make comments about the government, to agitate peacefully for government change, to seek redress, to petition the government, etc.
When people say "I can say whatever I want! I'm entitled to my free speech!"? They're usually freaking morons. Unless they were talking to or about the government, it just ain't so. There are ramifications for what you say about other people or institutions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do not have the right to libel anyone or anything you want
But in the US, to show slander or libel, you have to show that you had a reputation to reduce, that your reputation was reduced, that this reduction in reputation caused you monetary damage, and that whatever was said about you was false. The standards are different in Britain.
not really true (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not really true (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what you and the parent poster are missing is who has the burden of proof. In the US, the accuser has to prove that whatever was said was a lie (said knowingly and with malicious intent). In Britain, the default assumption is that the accused is guilty unless she can present the facts proving what she said was true.
The result is that in Britain, very rich (and very bad) people like Khalid bin Mahfouz (funds suicide bombers) and Roman Polanski (molests little girls) are able to shut up anyone trying to expose them.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a serial kitten huffer.
Go on, prove otherwise.
[ Tumbleweed, wind, distant bells... ]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the government isn't doing much restricting at all since libel is a civil action rather than a criminal one.
You can say pretty much whatever you want about someone and never see the inside of a jail cell.
you're wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A civil action is enforced by the courts, and ultimately by a judge. The government doesn't have any say in it apart from drafting the law in the first place... in fact a court can enforce an action *against* the government and there are many cases where this has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point we're talking about semantics. I don't disagree with anything you just said.
I could even go on and say that the government very rarely restricts speech because prior restraint is generally frowned upon. It all goes to the definitions of "restrict" and "government".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"your right to free speech in the US is your right to free speech AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT."
Since you are wrong, you aren't really clearing anything up.
Even a cursory reading of the founding fathers papers would tell you that.
You probably think only a government can censor;which is wrong and would make you the freaking moron.
Of curse, libel is a crime.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Larry Flynt [wikipedia.org] would like a word with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Robert Bork, is that you?
No, free speech is free speech. It is true that there are exceptions like libel law,
Re: (Score:1)
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Of course, this is holding opinions - when I present something as a fact, when it is in fact false, that's not protected. But whenever I start a sentence by "I think, that...." it is just an opinion, and should be fine, whatever I say... At least I think....
Re: (Score:2)
The same is true in the UK - The 1689 Bill of Rights (on which our historic right of free speech is based) states:
"That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal"
(I really like the nice short wording of that..)
It was further clarified by the Human Rights Act in 1998 to read:
"Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without
Re:Libel in Britain (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think there's an exemption in slander laws for a particular corner of Hyde Park. Indeed, Wikipedia says:
"A Speakers' Corner is an area where public speaking is allowed. The original and most noted is in the north-east corner of Hyde Park in London, England. Speakers there are allowed to speak as long as the police consider their speeches lawful. Contrary to mythology there is no immunity from the law, nor are any subjects proscribed. In practice the police tend to be tolerant and intervene when they receive a complaint or when they hear bad language."
True but (Score:2)
Re:Libel in Britain (Score:5, Interesting)
I dunno. There is a certain fairly popular blog in the U.K. that I read daily. (The blog has a basically religious content. Please read past that if it might bother you.) A couple of years ago, it seems that a pair of American lawyers, brothers from Texas, decided to launch a campaign to convert England to (Russian) Orthodoxy. To that end, they formed a "Charitable Trust," presumably under the laws of the UK.
At about the same time, the oldest chain of religious booksellers in England (the SPCK, which actually dates back to the 1600's) found itself in financial turmoil at a number of its stores. The Texas lawyers somehow winkled a large number of these stores away from the SPCK at fire-sale terms, in exchange for vague promises to keep things basically the way they were--in terms of the variety of stock, the employees, and other aspects of the stores. Apparently the SPCK shops were widely respected because they carried a broad spectrum of religious and philosophical tomes representing many viewpoints as opposed to confining themselves to Christian theology.
The story of what happened next was pretty tragic, and the blogger in question chronicled it faithfully. Books on philosophy and theologies other than Christian were swept away wholesale to be replaced by narrow, fundamentalist pop-tripe. Agreements with employees were terminated, often without notice. People had their vacation hours and sick/personal days taken away despite being represented by a union (or the British version of a union). Customers began staying away in droves. A rather pathetic Website was installed that was basically an amazon.uk storefront. A few days later, Google pronounced it unsafe and refused to allow people to visit it from search results without a strongly-worded warning not to do so.
Still the blogger continued to blog about it, though his regular focus is generally a lot more humourous. There were times when no one else was saying a word. Bookstores began to be closed. People continued to be fired without notice or arrived at work to find the shops shuttered.
The union representing a number of the employees signaled its intention to seek relief for them through the British courts. That, in turn, seemed to cause the Texas lawyers to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in their native Texas, far away from England. They then argued in the British courts that this should protect them from the action by the union.
Meanwhile, the blogger continued to blog. Newspapers ran an occasional article, but his blog had become the default gathering point for former employees, people who just plain missed the old bookstores, and people who were outraged at the heavy-handed behavior of the foreign lawyers- turned-missionaries.
Tragedy struck about a month ago in the form of a suicide by a longstanding and much-respected bookstore manager who became despondent after being let go along with his staff. That attracted the interest of several national papers, and his funeral was so large they had to hold it in a cathedral as opposed to his regular parish church. Naturally, messages of condolence and outrage piled up in the blogger's blog as well as in other blogs with similar interests.
This went on until about three days ago, when the blog contained a tersely worded message. The blogger had been the recipient of a cease-and-desist letter from one of the brothers. He did not have the funds to retain legal counsel or continue the fight. All references to the issue had been removed, together with their comments. Twenty-four hours later, even that post was removed.
As nearly as I can tell, after having followed this for over a year, no libel was committed, either in blog posts or in comments. People who wanted to attack the Texas lawyers personally were gently but firmly reminded that this wouldn't be tolerated, and their comments were removed.
I'd have to say that a voice in the UK has gone silent that should have been allowed to continue speaking. While this affects only a small section of the gen
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but IMHO, the blogger was probably protected under British law (what he was doing was reasonable, he was sticking to the truth, no reputations were harmed in the eyes of a reasonable person, etc) and he may have been eligible for legal aid. The Unions in Britain vary wildly, but have been known to go out on a limb to support those who were considered friendly and supportive. Those who were dismissed unfairly should have been eligible for protection and could probably have won compensation for violati
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole much? Maybe his country let him down... or maybe he was too lazy to investigate the possibility of legal aid, or simply didn't want to go to the lengths of employing a lawyer just to uphold a princ
Re: (Score:2)
This may be true if the trial went to court. For many, the costs of representation upfront, combined with an unfamilar legal system, make simply "giving in" the easier and safer choice. Few people are willing to take a stand on an issue like this when its just a hobby of yours.
The fact that legal aid failed...
A Cease and Desist letter is basically a warning, somebody saying I will sue you if you don't stop, but if you do I mo
Re: (Score:2)
On the US side the owners tried to file for chapter 7 then use that to close down the operation without being liable for the debts (we have no chapter 11 here). I'm not sure exactly *how* they've managed to do that.. it's an odd point of law if it's possible. Someone complained to the judge and the chapter 7 was blocked..
Maybe someone familiar with US law can make more sense of what they're doing than I can:
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/07/24/spck-owner-seeks-to-bankrupt-uk-charity-in-us-court [ministryoftruth.me.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speakers corner has no legal exemptions and never has done. It is subject to the same law as elsewhere in the UK
Re: (Score:2)
There is no automatic right to free speech
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act guarantees freedom of speech (within certain limits).
See Human Rights Act [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've had freedom of speech since 1689.
The problem is so many of our own population spout rubbish about 'unwritten consitutions' and 'no right to free speech' because they don't care to know the laws of their own country.
You in the US have a huge advantage.. you *know* your constitution. Half our population don't even realize we've got one - so the government can continue to take the piss out of it without any serious opposition.
True!! (Score:2)
Significance? (Score:2)
'The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences,'
Then this case is insignificant. It has always been this way.
media lawyer, Jo Sanders, of Harbottle & Lewis, told the BBC.
Maybe the summary should link to the BBC article [bbc.co.uk].
You know I gotta. (Score:1, Redundant)
Firsht post?
Re: (Score:1)
Shecond try.
Oh Noes! (Score:2)
People slandering each other on the internet! What is the world coming too!
Re: (Score:2)
It's libel. It's even in the summary. Pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Slander and libel are both forms of defamation, but they are very specific terms. Either the definition of slander that you quoted is incomplete, or you snipped the part that matters.
From Princeton's di
one of the problems with the nnet (Score:1)
How did he get pinged ? (Score:2)
Oh dear (Score:2)
'The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences'
If people are only just realising that now, then the world is in more trouble than I thought.
Friends? (Score:2)
Guess Ross and Chandler should get a fine too.
Dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Forgetting the ethics of what this guy did, when will people learn that there are limits to anonymity online? I'm surprised how this keeps happening. People should know by now that they can be tracked.
People who are more technically inclined should know to use proxies. Especially those based in countries that are unlikely to give the UK access to their logs - read: China/Russia. What about Tor? Honestly, posting stuff online that could get you in trouble directly from your home computer is on the same level of intelligence as robbing a bank with a big sign bearing your name, address and phone number.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Public figure doctrine (absence of malice) Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice). [13] Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault. The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.
Since there is no actual malice in the part of the content on that site, there is no case for libel
Re: (Score:2)
Looks more like an ignorant person who doesn't know much about geography. England and Wales are not part of the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe in the USA, but the UK has very different standards for libel.
No they don't. You pretty much have to show the same standards of the statements being malicious and you have to prove damages. They aren't identical, but they are far from being "very different".