Freedom of speech on the net questioned after libel award for comments in a Chat-room

23 March 2006

Freedom of speech on the net questioned after libel award for comments in a Chat-room

Chatroom users, bloggers and contributors to Internet forums and other Internet-based message
boards are warned. Their opinions could be the origin of a libel action against them.

Michael Keith-Smith, a former Conservative Party member issued a claim for libel after being
called a “nazi”, “racist bigot” and “nonce” during a debate in an internet forum on the war in
Iraq. Although accusations like these are common on the internet, Mr Keith-Smith decided to pursue
this matter as he believed that "It was a matter of principle” and that he just “did not see why
they should be allowed to get a way with it”, subsequently he sough enforcement of his right to
honour.

After an investigation to discover the real identity of the chat-room users who insulted him, Mr
Keith-Smith decided to begin court action against them by means of two different libel claims.

One of these actions was actually settled before trial for the amount of £30,000. However the
second action reached the court, which pronounced in favour of Mr Keith-Smith, awarding damages in
the sum of £10,000 together with £7,200 representing costs and the obligation for the defendant to
never repeat such allegations against Mr Keith-Smith.

This case is one of the few defamation cases between private individuals to go to court as usually
the parties endeavour to settle before trial.

However the true relevance of the present case resides on the fact that it is the only precedent
so far in which the complained words are posted on an internet chat-room and because of the fact
that the court applied the laws of libel as just they would if the comments were published in a
magazine or newspaper.

As a result, the outcome of this case is a clear warning for those using chat-rooms or posting
comments on forums, message boards and blogs all over the internet.

This case has also originated a bitter argument between those that understand that this is just
the normal application of the laws of libel (which already applied to traditional media) to the
world wide web.

On the other side, some consider that the present case will trigger a wider debate about whether
the libel law can apply to a debate moderated in a chat-room or blog, which have limited
circulation and which are self-moderated.

There are also very important issues pending to resolve that are not clear after the court
decision in the present case, such as the extent of the liability of the Internet Service
Providers (ISP) and the validity of ISP’s disclaimers of liability in relation to opinions posted
by its users.

In any case, to avoid further complications it would be highly advisable for the ISP, or message
boards owners to have a record of the users by requesting registration prior posting any comment.

Couto