Michael Keith Smith of the UK Independence Party has become the
latest person to win substantial damages after being defamed on the Internet.Smith brought the case against Tracy Williams after she posted a series of derogatory remarks about him on an online discussion board run by Yahoo. Williams has been ordered to pay £17,000 after being found guilty of libel.
The accusations included claims that Smith was a racist and guilty of sexual offences, and were made as part of an online discussion about the Iraq war in 2003.
Smith had argued in favour of the conflict, which prompted Williams to label him a "lard brain", and later to falsely claim he had sexually harassed a colleague.
Williams' remarks were made under a pseudonym, and in 2004 Smith obtained a court order forcing Yahoo to reveal the identity of the poster. He then brought his case to the High Court, claiming that Williams had continued to abuse him online.
Judge Alistair MacDuff, who heard the case, ordered Ms Williams to pay Mr Smith £10,000 damages and never again to repeat the remarks, which he described as "seriously defamatory". Williams, who did not file a defence, must also pay £7,200 costs.
Legal experts have suggested that Smith's victory could encourage other people to bring cases.
The landmark Godfrey vs Demon case in 2000 established that statements posted online were not beyond the reach of the law, and this case looks to have set a similarly important precedent.
Talkback
Remind me never to vote for the UK Independence Party. I wish people in public office always had the character to ignore Internet slurs. Free speech will always be abused by a few people; it would be best just to ignore them. Otherwise it appears as it free speech itself were under attack. Never a good thing, that.
Frankly I am surprised by the low level of damages awarded. Whatever someone may think about UKIP's policies (and I admit that I fully support them) there is no excuse for this vile, bilious and libelous attack.
Where does this leave the political party's slurring each other then even down to local community levels? which goes on all the time.
On second thought maybe nothings done because local mp's will probably end up using tax payer's money to bring cases to courts. :s
I think it comes with the territory to be honest, and one must be able to identify between a rant and slur, and if you cannot do that then why go into politics.
Free speech is a contradictory term; it always comes at a price. However, as in all excellent things anonymous free speech can be subject to abuse. The idea of freedom of expression is in need of a better look, it is not truly free; it can come at a very high toll. That price cannot be borne by a spotless individual or organization.
Despite this, there are many antisocial miscreants who manipulate this freedom to satisfy their wicked desires. Often these cloaked miscreants possess some sort of antisocial (called psychopaths in the old days) & other character disorder, & are driven only through hatred and revengeful, cruel propulsion. They take joy in tormenting others; they're in reality fueled by the pain they inflict; a victim's attempts to escape is their twisted trophy.
This pitiful civic conundrum has become a wild fire within the preceding ten years through anonymous cyber defamation. There have been cases in which courts have issued orders directing that anonymous bloggers are to be uncloaked to the libel victim, the orders are regularly a source of indignation for a small yet noisy body of zealous people that believe that freedom of expression must be absolute and unconditional & a utterer should not be stood accountable for his or her speech, without consideration to the accuracy or deceptiveness of the allegations. I suppose that should these same vocal people could live through the debilitating consequences that a sociopathic electronic detractor can have on the vocational, emotional, physical, & social wellness of targets or their loved ones; they might think twice before being as boisterous in their opposition.
An inherent distinction of anonymous cyber libel is that it has less credibility when seriously considered by reasonable and open-minded people. And yet, there is a newfangled dynamic with the predicament of malignant and anonymous online authors. While these statements can smell of shenanigans, if the victim is to be "Googled" for a job, contract applications, Girl Guide leadership or a date, then the individual carrying out the references will probably factor in the potential PR exposure from associating with the victim. Although the potential employer might see through the diatribe, the decision maker will probably give weight to what their customers and partners will believe if less clever or objective.