"Rate My" websites

cianclarke

I've had quite a good idea for a "rate my" website, let's just call it "rate my plumber". It hasn't been implemented before, and I'd be setting this up genuinely with good intentions, however I'm highly concerned about the legality of such a website.

I see the length of the "ratemysolicitor" disclaimer, and how they claim to be governed by US law, as the site is hosted in the US. THe same would be the case with me, how true their statement is I don't know.
Granted, they are taking on the perpetrators of any possible legal action - a dangerous one.

Can anybody advise me as to if there are any sorts of disclaimers I can put up to protect me as the webmaster, and would this be a safe venture? Or best to stay away..?

seamus

cianclarke wrote:

Can anybody advise me as to if there are any sorts of disclaimers I can put up to protect me as the webmaster

You can't really.

Basically, you would be liable as publisher for everything said on your website. Note that this is currently untested in Irish courts, but it is essentially the way it works. Adding disclaimers for posters and readers are of limited effect, but do allow you a certain amount of leeway to say, "Well you knew X from reading the disclaimer".

Imagine the Irish Independent put a big box on its front page every day saying, "The articles and opinions expressed herein are the individual opinions of the writers and contributors, and not of Independent Media. We will not be held liable for the articles expressed in this publication".
They would be torn to shreds in court. Disclaimers on Irish websites are similarly useless.

It's a venture which needs to be undertaken with care. If it's heavily moderated, you can probably remove any legally iffy comments and save yourself from action. Depending on the target group, your level of litigation may also be reduced - setting up a site to criticise solicitors was an exercise in suicide IMO. Setting up a site to criticise plumbers, for example, may be safer purely because a plumber is less likely to take you to court over such comments.

The very idea of rating may also be an issue. If one person has a rating of say 1/10, and you have no information or comments to back up this rating - have you libelled the person in question? You've basically told the world they are crap, but have nothing to back it up.

I don't know if having the site hosted outside of Ireland affords you any protection. It certainly protects your data because it's out of the jurisdiction of Irish courts (so they can't order that it be deleted or forcibly remove it), but it may not protect you from comments made. This is where I don't know the specifics of publication law.

For example, if someone made a comment about Bertie Aherne in the Boston Times that was potentially libellous, can Bertie take the Boston Times to court in Ireland over the comments?

What if the Boston Times is specifically exported for publication in the Republic of Ireland?

How do the existing laws around publication affect items which are published in other jurisdictions but;
1. Made available in this country through incidental means (e.g. web sites), or
2. Specifically targetted for availability in this country.
?

haz

cianclarke wrote:

Can anybody advise me as to if there are any sorts of disclaimers I can put up to protect me as the webmaster, and would this be a safe venture? Or best to stay away..?

Yes. Just say you have no control over the site, don't "own" it and didn't post anything yourself. And you aren't the webmaster, of course. It seems to work.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78846

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote:

The very idea of rating may also be an issue. If one person has a rating of say 1/10, and you have no information or comments to back up this rating - have you libelled the person in question? You've basically told the world they are crap, but have nothing to back it up.

You've told the world you think they're [not good] - it's a matter of opinion. If you honestly think X and say "I honestly think X" then that statement is true. If it is not true, you may have a qualified privilege to make your opinions known, provided you publish that opinion in the furtherance of a mutual interest (i.e. maintenance of the high standards of the plumbing trade) rather than out of malice.

seamus wrote:

For example, if someone made a comment about Bertie Aherne in the Boston Times that was potentially libellous, can Bertie take the Boston Times to court in Ireland over the comments?

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127 etc - Irish politician sues UK newspaper for defamatory comments. But, in my view, the action should be taken in whichever jursidction that the damage was caused in e.g. the reputation is diminished in the view of the people of that jurisdiction.

seamus wrote:

What if the Boston Times is specifically exported for publication in the Republic of Ireland?

My view is that you can publish in one place, and then publish again in another place. The same newsstory can be published over and over again. If I make a defamatory statement to two persons, I publish that statement to each of them separately.

haz

johnnyskeleton wrote:

If you honestly think X and say "I honestly think X" then that statement is true.

That wouldn't always impress the judge - I believe Judge Hanna found the honestly held opinion (whatever that means) that a member of the legal profession was the local bike highly defamatory.

On the other hand, Chief Justice Mr Justice Keane noted in the Beverley Cooper-Flynn trial that an English law lord, Lord Bingham, had, in a libel case (Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd) stated that "the tort of defamation protects those whose reputations have been unlawfully injured. It affords little or no protection to those who have, or deserve to have, no reputation deserving of legal protection. I am satisfied the same considerations apply in this case." The case included statements found to be false, but commensurate with the plaintiff's deserved reputation.

seamus

Thanks for that johnny, especially the clarification on thinking something about someone and declaring it.

So if the ratings are generally OK, it's really comments that would need to be watched out for. From my experience on this site, people are rarely compelled to write "I honestly believe". More often than not, people will simply post things along the lines of
"Joe Bloggs is nothing but a chancer and a criminal. He blatantly overcharges for his work and then never returns your phone calls. Avoid him".

johnnyskeleton

haz wrote:

That wouldn't always impress the judge - I believe Judge Hanna found the honestly held opinion (whatever that means) that a member of the legal profession was the local bike highly defamatory.

On the other hand, Chief Justice Mr Justice Keane noted in the Beverley Cooper-Flynn trial that an English law lord, Lord Bingham, had, in a libel case (Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd) stated that "the tort of defamation protects those whose reputations have been unlawfully injured. It affords little or no protection to those who have, or deserve to have, no reputation deserving of legal protection. I am satisfied the same considerations apply in this case." The case included statements found to be false, but commensurate with the plaintiff's deserved reputation.

I suppose an example is in order -
Haz might say: I give Johnnyskeleton's comment 1/10. I just don't accept it as the law. He has ignored the views of Hanna J. He's a complete shinebox.

"I give Johnnyskeleton's comment 1/10" - if you believe it only rates at 1/10 then that statement is true. There is nothing objective about it.

"I just don't accept it as the law" - again, if that is your opinion then the statement is true. Even if it did reduce my reputation, it is very easy for you to plead justification, and very difficult for me to then disprove it.

"He has ignored the views of Hanna J." - this is an assertion of fact, and it would make little difference, in my view, if you say "it is my opinion that he has ignored the views of Hanna J." as it amounts to the same thing. It doesn't really defame me because, for example, the views of a particular judge might present a different views to the commonly accepted view, and the fact that there are several views on what is and is not acceptable would not damage my reputation. However, if it could be viewed as a serious omission on my part, and it was false that I ignored those views, that could be defamatory.

"He's a complete shinebox" - here's the real defamatory statement, and again there would be little difference if you said "It's my opinion that...". What has changed is that you are now publishing a specific allegation which can be proved/disproved to be true on more objective grounds.

I think that the phrase "village bicycle" is defamatory because it asserts or suggests that the person is a person of sexual impropriety which might, or might not be untrue. I would say that it is a fact dressed up as an opinion. On the other hand if someone said "I rate Y 1/10 because she lost my case" then I would suggest that, if she did lose the case, is not defamatory.

There was a fairly well publicised case in Northern Ireland where a resteraunt review was found to be defamatory taking into account not just untrue statements of fact, but also unfair comments that follow on from that. MOP have a good article on their website about this, and I would be of the view that the opinion expressed in terms of "1/10", "not good" or the like would not be actionable by themselves. However, defamation is always a difficult one to pin down, and we may have radical changes (legislative and judicial) in the near future.

Our man in Havana

I run a few bulletin boards on various subjects. All my boards are hosted in the USA and the domains are also US based and are cloaked via a 3rd party, IE if you do a whois search all you see is my US based agent. This agent will not release my details unless they receive a court order from a US court.

I make it clear that the sites are US based and that US law applies. If someone in Ireland wants to come after me they will have to bring a case in the US. I think this provides me with adequate protection.

jhegarty

How about the boards way of doing things, take it down once a threat is receive.... like that music company we can't talk about...

could they still end up in trouble legally...if I post ABC limited stole my hamster, ABC limited ask boards to take it down and they do , can ABC limited still sue boards ?

Time Magazine

seamus wrote:

Imagine the Irish Independent ... They would be torn to shreds in court.

Should be torn to shreds outside the court as well tbh.

haz

jhegarty wrote:

ABC limited ask boards to take it down and they do , can ABC limited still sue boards ?

It is a democratic freedom to take a case, and to take fees to represent a case, whatever its merits. I think Prince Phillipp sued British Telecom Gold (a BB forum), Ryanair sued an airline pilot's forum, some abrasive child-rearing "expert" sued MumsNet and of course McLibel - all long after the original material had been removed. Someone sued LiveLine because a caller suggested oral sex was a very lucrative political activity, advising the entire nation of something a few thousand actually heard (but I think NOT giving oral was very lucrative in that case).

Digital Rights Ireland http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/01/06/libel-laws-in-ireland/ suggests Best Practice: "While a web host may, having received a complaint, examine the site and decide that the statement is not defamatory, most err on the side of caution and merely remove all content subject to complaint. Unless you are sure you can avail of one of the above defences, it is best to err on the side of caution in this way."

This appears to be what Irish ISPs do - on a complaint, the content is deleted without evaluating the validity of the complaint. ISPs outside Ireland don't appear to respond to complaints from within Ireland, but the complainer might set ReputationDefender http://www.reputationdefender.com/ on you (trembles with fear).

seamus

It should also be pointed out that there is a massive difference between removing content after a complaint, and apologising for the content being there.

If you apologise, you're accepting responsibility for the libel. You can then be nailed to the wall in court.
If however you just delete the content, that doesn't incriminate or otherwise have any bearing on your guilt in terms of the alleged libel.