[BNM] A cautionary note on posting

Paul Silver pj.silver at ntlworld.com
Fri Nov 28 10:19:35 GMT 2003

If the libel is that company has failed in it's service, or has done 
something wrong in it's service, and they can show beyond reasonable 
doubt that they did not, that means the statement that they have done 
something wrong is libellous. Now, if the person saying the potential 
libel has proof their statement is correct, then it's not a problem and 
the solicitor working for the original company would probably back off 
before taking it to court because there's a good chance they'll lose.

Now, thing is, this particular situation isn't helped by the original 
poster not exactly having the spare dough to take all this to court at 
the moment. I've worked for a very court-action happy company in the 
past, who've got posts about them removed from forum archives on more 
than one occasion. As in this case, the forum owners would rather get 
rid of the post rather than try going to court about it. Is this 
unfair? Perhaps. In this case, the poster involved can always put their 
views up on a web page on their own space, with the risks that involves.

Given the number of posts in the archive, one post causing a temporary 
problem does not seem to be a reason for blocking off the whole, or a 
significant chunk of, the archive.


On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Oliver Marshall wrote:

> Still doesn't mean shit. I could stand up in court and find good
> evidence that im right in thinking so and so is a c*nt, chances are 
> that
> it will be laughed out.
> You could take "Standing by your post" to mean "having a turgid dump",
> or "popping out for a bacon sarny", but frankly I still take it to mean
> "Standing by your post", which again, has nothing to do with the
> libellous (oir otherwise) content of the post, which was the original
> issue.

More information about the BNMList mailing list