DISQUS

Martin Stabe: Birmingham Post: Why top judge threw out libel case involving Tolkien family

  • Observer · 10 months ago
    Could he not be leaving the posting there as evidence?

    If it is deleted, apart from a screen grab, there was no proof it was ever there. (Save for the wayback machine if it was indexed)

    Also I am pretty sure that at least a few people would have looked at the blog/posting if only because of some blog software notifying other sites of updates (pingbacks? I could be completely wrong here) - could he not use the server access logs in his defence?
  • Wize · 10 months ago
    How do you retain proof that someone made the comment...

    ...if you have to delete said comment when you find it?

    The comment will include date/time stamps and IP address. Deleting it will remove the evidence.
  • Tom Scotney · 10 months ago
    Hi all, I wrote that article for the Post. For anyone interested, the full text of the case by Justice Eady is here.

    Eady seems to be specifically saying that by leaving the comment up, Carrie was acquiescing to publication - presumably making him liable for the contents (although that wasn't relevent in this particular case)

    In terms of proof, it looks as though it might have to be a screenshot - whether that'd be legally admissable I don't know. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to keep the post+comments intact but make it non-public, if you've got the ability to do that.
  • Martin Stabe · 10 months ago
    Any case where the claimant is also the publisher of the site where the alleged libel occured is going to raise some very weird legal issues.

    Mr Justice Eady's reasoning seems obvious form the moment Carrie became aware of the publication and acquiesced. That's fairly standard stuff.

    I think "Observer" makes one interesting observation, though: What about the period before Carrie became aware of the comment? If the site was post-moderated, there must have been a point in the timeline when only the commenter was aware of the comment. At this point, the key issue seems to be "substantial publication" - did enough people read the comment to justify the claim of defamation?

    I might give that case a closer reading!
  • Christopher Carrie · 10 months ago
    It has to be understood that this blog was my first attempt at blogging and my technical ability to say the least was minimal. This is borne out by comparing the date the posting was made against the date ‘The blog owner changed this comment’ almost two weeks later.
    That is how long it took me to find someone who could do the necessary to remove my home address.
    At the time of removal I was advised it was too late to make any difference as the whole and original posting had been copied and pasted throughout the Internet.
    Removing it from my own blog was, as it was so delicately put ‘the equivalent of pi**ing on a volcano’.
    I can tell you that on first discovering it I was terrified for the safety of my wife, children and myself.
    Any reading of what he wrote in ‘Fact 1’ can only be taken to mean I have paedophile tendencies.
    Given that some Tolkien fans see their mentor as godlike I fully expected a petrol bomb through my window, or worse.
    The first thing I did was to report to the Solihull police who gave me the comfort of a panic alarm.
    They also initiated a crime report to the Welsh constabulary who visited Royd Tolkien and issued him with a first stage caution in harassment.

    I don’t want to write another book on your blog but will come back and enlighten your readers more.
    Any sensible questions I will answer, but please no furry-toed crap from Tolkien fanatics.

    Yours Christopher Carrie
  • Martin Stabe · 10 months ago
    Since I have no way of verifying your identity, I have had to remove your other comment here, which reproduced the text at issue in the libel case we are discussing.

    The fact that the potentially libellous comments were reproduced elsewhere raises another interesting issue about online libel cases, the legal consequences of aggregation and so on. But that's another matter.

    Unfortunately, I don't have the time to carefully moderate a comment thread on a delicate legal matter, so I will be closing comments on this thread.

    However, this is a very interesting matter that raises lots of issues about the development of libel law on the web. If you want to continue this discussion as I do, please do so on your own blog(s). I will see any posts that link back to this one.