header-logo header-logo

13 March 2008 / Nick Armstrong
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Features , Public , Legal services , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Blog and be damned?

Who is culpable when internet users insult or libel? Nick Armstrong looks at the state of the law

One of the most striking features of the internet is its use as a vehicle for criticism, personal attacks and the expression of downright hatred. This can extend from “flaming ”—hostile or insulting interaction between internet users—to websites and blogs whose sole purpose is to provide a forum for hatred or vilification of a particular individual or company. Typing “I hate” and the name of a well-known female singer into Google brought up 9.5 million search results. Even within the , typing “I hate” plus the name of a familiar leisure company produced over 750,000 search results. Searching for the same name and “are s**t” produced even more results.

However, much of the legal activity in has not concerned overt “hatred” sites—perhaps because allegations on such sites are more likely to be taken with a pinch of salt as mere irrational ranting. Recent cases have instead seen legal action taken

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll