Risks of libel actions against social networking websites have
been underlined after the High Court awarded £22,000 in damages to
a British businessman.
The businessman, Mathew Firsht, won the award from a former
school friend with regard to a fake profile created about him on
Facebook.
Grant Raphael posted false claims about Firsht's sexuality,
religion and political views, as well as creating a Facebook group
called "Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?" The postings sprang out of
an eight-year-old feud that began after they worked together for a
television production company.
Raphael faces a bill of more than £80,000, including Firsht's
legal costs.
Facebook was not a defendant in the action, but social
networking sites could now find themselves embroiled in litigation
as a result of content that is, for example, defamatory, or in
contempt of court.
Max Cole, media lawyer at solicitors' firm
Mishcon de Reya, said that the
case showed the risks to which social networking websites are
exposed. And he warned that no one could be certain as to what
actions they should take to minimize risks.
He said: "Websites that allow users to post their own content
are publishers of that content, just like a newspaper. They are
responsible for the contents that go on the site, irrespective of
the fact that they didn't write it themselves."
"There are libel risks associated with it and there are libel
risks about which you cannot really do anything."
He said that it was impractical to try to read the material in
advance because of the sheer volume of content such sites contain,
adding: "What effect would there be if they are actively screening?
Staff may create more risk: they have more liability in some
senses. It may be safer not to do any pre-reading."
He does advise sites to respond quickly to any complaints of
libel. However, it is impractical to monitor all content, even
after publication, he said.
British newspapers generally monitor readers' forums on their
websites. The advantage of monitoring is that an obvious defamation
can be spotted and pulled quickly.
Cole said: "If something stays up for 10 days and is taken down,
the damage is less than if it stays up for 10 weeks."
Nonetheless, monitoring might also increase the risk for
websites because they would be seen as more actively involved in
the publication.
He added: "We don't yet know what the current view of the court
is on this."
"Is it better to monitor and so be involved, or not be
involved?"
"It is not absolutely clear yet what they should do. They should
be conscious that there is a libel risk, but this is not a reason
not to run social network sites."