By Lucy Sherriff for The Register
This article has been reproduced with permission
Ford is no stranger to controversy – it is fair to say she
is loved and loathed in equal measure for her rigourous and
disciplinarian approach to childcare. But she has now stirred up a
debate over freedom of speech online not seen since the infamous
case of Godfrey
vs. Demon Internet.
Ford's legal action has sparked fresh calls from internet
service providers for the UK government to develop formal
procedures governing the removal of illegal material from
websites.
Mumsnet, describing the situation as "surreal", has now moved to
ban all further discussion of the ex-maternity nurse to prevent
further postings appearing, and says it has complied with all
Ford's requests, save the one demanding that the site pay her legal
fees. (You can read its statement here)
In a letter
to Mumsnet's ISP, Ford's lawyers set out her complaint. Three
postings are mentioned. One "bore the defamatory meaning that our
client has unpleasant and unhygienic personal habits"; one "bore
the defamatory meaning that our client is cruel, uncaring, and
justifiably reviled" and "says our client 'straps babies to rockets
and fires them into south Lebanon'."
All three have been removed, and DSC, Mumsnet's ISP, says it is
confident it has done its duty under the so called "notice and
takedown" "rules" set out in the judgment in the Godfrey/Demon
case. It argues that the author's insistence that the site be taken
offline is "wholly disproportionate".
DSC managing director David Adams told us that Ford's lawyers,
Foot Ansteys, have threatened further legal action against his
company unless he removes the site, and have advised him to take
legal advice.
"We do know about Demon - Godfrey," he told us. "And we are
willing to address specific concerns ... We think we've responded
in a timely manner to every request, and removing the entire site
is unnecessary."
Under current UK law, clarified in the Demon case, ISPs cannot
be held accountable for illegal material they host until they are
made aware of its presence, when they must take it down.
In the case of child pornography, it is easy enough to determine
if material is legal or not. But this is much harder in the greyer
world of defamation and libel. And nothing in the Godfrey ruling
explained how ISPs are to verify the legal status of an offending
post.
A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association
(ISPA) said this leaves ISPs stuck in a catch 22 situation. "There
are potentially legal consequences for ISPs if they do remove
material," he told us. "It could contravene the poster's human
rights, for instance, if it isn't actually defamatory."
The spokesman called for an impartial body to make judgments
about the legal status of contested material, and said that ISPA
would welcome new legislation following a review of
the law in this area back in 2002.
In the case of Ford vs. Mumsnet, however, he says the author
should let it lie. "Mumsnet has removed the offending posts, and
that should be the end of it."
David Adams also calls for a change in the law. "At the moment
there is no upside for an ISP defending action like this. We want
to do right by our clients, but equally, we don't want to go out of
business. We're a small company, and my livelihood and that of my
employees would be threatened by a big legal fight."
He says that for now, DSC is happy to back Mumsnet, but adds: "I
don't know how far we can take it."
As well as reviving the much-needed debate over who is
responsible for illegal information posted on the net, the Mumsnet
legal action is interesting because of who it targets. The net is
full of frank discussion about her methods: Amazon.co.uk, for
instance has for a long time hosted negative comments about Ford's
methods in the reader reviews of her books. We contacted Amazon to
ask if they planned to removed the postings, but had not heard from
them at the time of going to press.
© The Register 2006
