Here's a quick follow-up to my Nov. 27 post about a U.K.-based blogger who recently posted a photo of a man she says assaulted her in the London Underground. As of this writing, Technorati has logged 53 inbound links to that posting.
In my posting I asked if anyone who knows U.K. libel law could shed some light on that angle of this story. Today, U.K. communications ethics blogger Philip Young did just that. See: Have bloggers libeled Jackie's alleged "attacker"?
Young interviewed his University of Sunderland colleague David Banks, co-editor of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, about this issue.
Banks said, in part: "Bloggers who repeat these sort of allegations ought to keep a wary eye on the laws of libel in the U.K.
- "the words published are capable of having a defamatory meaning
- "he is identified
- "they've been published by a third party
"Note that he does not have to prove the words printed about him were untrue, quite the reverse, the court will assume the words printed were untrue, and then it will be up to the bloggers to prove the truth of what they have published."
...Hmmm, looking this over, it seems to me that anyone who wishes to identify the man in the photo while minimizing risks of being charged with libel should report that directly to the London Transport Police -- not post their identification claims or guesses on a weblog, discussion group, or other public forum.
Thanks for looking into this, Philip.
"The words published are capable of having a defamatory meaning”...
