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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll