Last month, the High Court ruled in Sheffield Wednesday FC v Neil Hargreaves that the identity of anonymous makers of comments on a website could stay hidden where those comments were "trivial" in nature, even if they were defamatory. However, the identities of makers of more serious defamatory comments were to be revealed.
Facts
This case was about comments made by 11 users of a message board on www.owlstalks.com, a website for fans of Sheffield Wednesday FC run by the defendant, Ian Hargreaves. These users went under anonymous names such as 'Halfpint'.
The website terms & conditions banned the using of defamatory language on the message board.
The Club, its Directors and Chairman, claimed that these users made 14 comments about them that were defamatory and constituted a "sustained campaign of vilification". It sought a Court order for the disclosure of the identity of the users in question.
Judgment
In considering this case, the High Court said that the balance to be achieved was between:
on the one hand...
- the right of the target of the defamatory comments to protect its reputation;
and on the other hand...
- the right of the makers of the comments to respect for their private lives and to "express themselves freely". The makers of the comments had expected their identities to remain hidden. Disclosing their identities would therefore constitute "invasion" of their right to a private life; and
- whether disclosure is warranted with regard to the rights, freedoms and interests of data subjects under the Data Protection Act 1998 - the makers of the comments were data subjects under the Act.
Balancing these rights, the Court ruled that:
- The identities of 7 of the 11 users should remain protected. These users had only made comments that constituted a "trivial attack which would not be taken seriously". These comments were "barely defamatory or little more than abusive or likely to be understood as jokes". Here, the balance was in favour of the users right to private lives.
- The identities of the 4 other users were to be revealed. The comments of these users "may reasonably be understood to allege greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness and dishonest behaviour on the part of the Claimants". For these comments, the right of the Claimants to protect their reputations outweighed the rights of the users.
The High Court said that the prohibition on defamatory language contained in the website terms & conditions was a relevant factor in its decision. It also took into account the lack of any confidentiality policy for the benefit of users of the website.
IMPACT comment
This case tells us that, even where a defamatory comment is made, the Court may decide not to order the disclosure of the identity of the maker of the comment where the comment is trival and would not be taken seriously. On the other hand, those making serious defamatory comments are still likely to see their identities revealed in any defamation claim.
The Court's inclusion of the website terms & conditions as a factor in its ruling means that websites with that allow user content (such as message boards and blogs that allow comments) should consider revising their legal terms to give their users maximum protection.
Comments