An Internet Service Provider who was re-distributing Usenet postings it had received, to its users in general, remained a publisher at common law, even though he was not such within the definitions of the Act, and it was therefore liable in defamation after failing to remove a posting which it then continued to distribute after the libel had been notified to it. The claimant applied to strike out that part of the defence which denied that it was a publisher.
Held: That part of the application succeeded. Morland J said: ‘In my judgment the defendants, whenever they transmit and whenever there is transmitted from the storage of their news server a defamatory posting, publish that posting to any subscriber to their ISP who accesses the newsgroup containing that posting. Thus every time one of the defendants’ customers accesses soc.culture.thai and sees that posting defamatory of the plaintiff there is a publication to that customer’.
Morland J
Times 20-Apr-1999, Gazette 07-Jul-1999, [1999] EWHC QB 244, [1999] 4 All ER 342, [1999] Masons CLR 267, [1999] ITCLR 282, [2001] QB 201, [1999] EMLR 542, [2000] 3 WLR 1020
Bailii
Defamation Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pullman v Hill and Co CA 1891
The plaintiff claimed publication of a defamation when the defendant was said to have dictated it to his typist.
Held: That was sufficient publication. The Court considered what would amount to publication in the law of defamation.
Lord . .
Cited – Emmens v Pottle CA 1885
A subordinate distributor, here a vendor of newspapers, can plead the common law defence to defamation, of innocent dissemination.
Held: The vendor was prima facie liable, and therefore had to demonstrate the defence to avoid liability. He . .
Cited – Day v Bream 1837
A printed handbill, contained imputations on the plaintiff clearly libellous. The plaintiff lived at Marlborough; the defendant was the porter of the coach-office at that place, and it was his business to carry out and deliver the parcels that came . .
Cited – Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library 1900
The court was asked about the liability in defamation of a circulating library who provided books to subscribers, in this case about the book on Stanley’s search for Emir Pasha in Africa. . .
Cited – Weldon v The Times Book Co Ltd 1911
The court considered the case of a bookseller who sells a book defamatory of the Plaintiff, in this case the books on Gounod. . .
Cited – Byrne v Deane CA 1937
A notice had been displayed on a golf club notice board. The court considered whether this constituted publication for defamation purposes.
Held: Greene LJ said: ‘Now on the substantial question of publication, publication, of course, is a . .
Cited – Sun Life Assurance -v W H Smith 1934
The defendant displayed newspaper posters announcing ‘More grave Sun Life of Canada Disclosures’ Their liability in defamation was considered. . .
Cited – Bottomley v F W Woolworth 1932
The court examined the liability in defamation of distributors of a magazine, ‘The detective story magazine’ containing the article ‘Swindlers and Scoundrels. Horatio Bottomley, Editor and Embezzler.’ . .
Cited – Anderson v New York Telephone Co 1974
(New York) The court considered the role of a telephone company in a defamation action and said that ‘the telephone company’s role is merely passive.’ There was no liability for the phone company in having furnished a service to someone who used the . .
Cited – Cubby Inc v CompuServe Inc 1991
(United States) Leisure DJ said: ‘CompuServe develops and provides computer-related products and services, including CompuServe Information Service (‘CIS’), an on-line general information service or ‘electronic library’ that subscribers may access . .
Cited – Zeran v America Online 1997
(United States of America) Wilkinson CJ discussed the statutory protection given to Internet Service providers in the US: ‘Section 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information . .
Cited – Stratton Oakmont Inc v Prodigy Services Co 1995
(New York) The defendant computer network company held itself out as having editorial control over notes posted on its bulletin board, imposed content guidelines on its users by prescreening notes for offensive language, and permitted board leaders . .
Cited – Lunney v Prodigy Services Co 1998
(United States) Some ‘infantile practical joker’ sent an e-mail to a boy scout leader, which falsely gave the impression that it came from Alex G Lunney, ‘a prospective eagle scout’. He complained of that as well as two bulletin board messages . .
Cited by:
See Also – Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited (2) QBD 23-Apr-1999
Evidence of Reputation Admissible but Limited
The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for defamation. The defendant wished to amend its defence to include allegations that the plaintiff had courted litigation by his action.
Held: A judge assessing damages should be able see the . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v William Frederick Ian Beggs (Opinion No 2) HCJ 21-Sep-2001
The defendant complained that an article published on the Internet was a contempt of court in that it prejudiced his trial for murder by reference inter alia to previous proceedings against him. There were others also. The court was aksed whether . .
Cited – Bunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
bunt_tilleyQBD2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.163129