Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 35 MB]
Categories:
Defamation and Reputation Management
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast is aimed at those with a knowledge of the legal framework relevant to ‘User Generated Content’ and online defamation looking to consider how the law has been applied and adapted to online content in the past year or so. This podcast will focus in particular on seven areas: Developments in the United States- the SPEECH Act, “Review Site” cases, Other UGC and online cases, Twitter-law, Linking, Abuse of process and Identifying bloggers including Norwich Pharmacal orders.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Be aware of developments in the United States;
  • Be familiar with the provisions and scope of the SPEECH Act;
  • Know the significance of the ‘Roommates’ case;
  • Be aware of the courts approach to ‘Review Sites’ cases;
  • Know whether internet search engines will be deemed to be publishers at common law;
  • Know what the liability will be of online publishers for unmoderated comments posted by users;
  • Be aware of the criminal considerations of content posted on social networking sites;
  • Be familiar with cases relating to defamatory “tweets”;
  • Know whether a “tweeter” can have an expectation of privacy regarding the content that they post;
  • Be able to identify the case relating to Twitter being an acceptable medium of service of an injunction;
  • Be aware of the issues relevant to advertising on websites and microblogs like Twitter;
  • Know what the position is regarding “tweeting” from court;
  • Be familiar with the role of Abuse of Process in this context;
  • Know what claimants should do when seeking to establish the identity of a poster who is defaming them or invading their privacy;
  • Know the proper route where the UGC hosts is outside of the jurisdiction.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Legislative Updates
Sources and References:
  • Ali v Associated Newspapers [2010] EWHC 100 (QB);
  • Amoudi v Brisard [2006] EWHC 1062 (QB);
  • Applause Stores Ltd & another v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB);
  • Baskerville v Daily Mail and Independent on Sunday (8 February 2011);
  • Blaney's Blarney (1 October 2009, Chancery Division, Lewison J);
  • Bryce v Barber [2010] EWHC 1907 (QB);
  • Budu v BBC [2010] EWHC 616 (QB);
  • Cairns v Lalit Modi [2010] EWHC 2859 (QB);
  • Campaign against arms trade v BAE Systems PLC [2007] EWHC 330 (QB);
  • Clift v Clarke (18 February 2011);
  • Communications Act 2003;
  • Communications Decency Act 1996;
  • Crookes v Newton (Canada);
  • Defamation Act 1996;
  • Eason v Kordowski (proceedings issued 26 February 2010);
  • Ecommerce Regulations 2002;
  • Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v Roommates.com (9th Circuit, 2008);
  • Farrall v Kordowski (proceedings issued 23 September 2010);
  • Firtash v Public Media, Marone, Bonner & Zahoor (Unreported, 25 February 2011);
  • January 2011 edition of the Editor's Codebook ;
  • Kachke v Gray & Hilton;
  • Karin v Newsquest Media Group Limited [2009] EWHC 3205 (QB);
  • Kaschke v Gray & Hilton [2010] EWHC 690 (QB);
  • Keith-Smith v Williams (2006) (unreported);
  • Lonzim v Sprague [2009] EWHC 2838 (QB);
  • Mardas v New York Times Company [2008] EWHC 3135;
  • Mazzola v Kordowski (proceedings issued 16 September 2010);
  • Metropolitan Schools v Designtechnica and others [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB);
  • Mitsui Ltd v Nexen petroleum UK Limited;
  • Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise [1974] AC 133;
  • Phillips v Kordowski (proceedings issued 14 July 2010);
  • Polonsky & Service v Figes (July 10 unreported);
  • R v Gareth Compton (2010);
  • R v Paul Chambers (2010);
  • Sheffield Wednesday FC Ltd v Hargreaves [2007] EWHC 2375 (QB);
  • Siegal v Kardashian (2011) United States;
  • Simorangkir v Love (2011) United States;
  • Talbot v Elsbury (2011);
  • The SPEECH Act (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act);
  • Totalise v Motley Fool [2001] EWCA Civ 1897;
  • X v Weiler (2011);
  • Zeran v America Online Inc (4th Circuit, 1997).
Tags:

In this podcast Jaron Lewis at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain discusses recent developments in online defamation and privacy law. It will consider developments in the United States aimed at addressing the issue of ‘libel tourists.’ It will focus on the issues arising for ‘Review Sites’ and some of the recent actions on the topic.

It will consider some poignant questions that arise when considering the role defamation and privacy law has online: Will website hosts and internet search engines be responsible for user generated content? Can comments posted on social networking websites like ‘facebook’ and ‘twitter’ have criminal consequences or give rise to potential claims for defamation? Should a “tweeter” have an expectation of privacy? Will the media be permitted to “tweet” from court? How can claimants identify bloggers that might be defaming them or invading their privacy?

The podcast will also look at the safeguards available to respondents in these cases.

Podcast last reviewed: 2011-10-25

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com