Websites 'should carry libel risk for anonymous posts'

[shetlandpeat]

There have been some interesting comments by Mumsnet about the proposals. There is a worry that, especially with their site, and others similar

that folk could be removed or penalised.

 

Under the current law, websites are liable for defamatory statements made by their users. If they fail to take down a post when they receive a complaint, they risk being treated as the "primary publisher" of the statement.

 

Which is interesting with current topics here, other local sites and comments on local newspapers.

 

The proposals could be abused if a few folk who have an interest in a comment not being there, they could complain and it would have to be removed..

 

It recommends that where complaints are made about comments from identified authors - the website should promptly publish a notice of the complaint alongside it.

 

The report said

 

Anonymity may encourage free speech but it also discourages responsibility

 

On the side of peer to peer support Mumsnet said this

 

If you think all anonymity is bad you could end up with unintended consequences of removing peer-to-peer support, in particular around sensitive issues

 

All the quotes are from the BBC HERE

[marlin13]

As long as a site is well moderated, as this one is (give yourself a pat on the back), anonymous posting should not prove an major issue. There are often good reason for anonymous posts. Anonymity is something which some social media site posters would benefit from

 

To blanket ban anonymous posts would i think be a step to far, but as with everything a good discussion about it never hurts

[JAStewart]

How would you verify posts? In a anonymous-free world I could sign up as but it's not them that's saying it.