Facebook Libel Win

Looks like the times are changing and people will now be held accountable for using the internet to create libel against another. This case is being seen as setting the benchmark for further cases of a similar nature.

" Payout for false Facebook profile

A businessman whose personal details were "laid bare" in fake entries on the Facebook social networking website has won a libel case at the High Court.

Mathew Firsht was awarded £22,000 in damages against an old school friend, Grant Raphael, who created the profile.

The judge ruled that Mr Raphael's defence - that the entry was created by mischievous party gate-crashers at his flat - was "built on lies".

The profiles were on Facebook for 16 days until they were taken down.

Mr Firsht accused Mr Raphael of creating a false personal profile, and a company profile called "Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?".

Mr Raphael said that "strangers" who attended an impromptu party at his house in Hampstead in north London sneaked off to a spare bedroom and created the profiles on his PC.

He did not strike me as being the kind of man to waste valuable time on ancient disputes
Deputy Judge Richard Parkes QC

Deputy Judge Richard Parkes QC described his claim as "utterly far-fetched".

The judge heard that the private information concerned Mr Firsht's whereabouts, activities, birthday and relationship status. It falsely indicated his sexual orientation and political views.

Mr Firsht said it included allegations that he owed substantial sums of money which he had repeatedly avoided paying by lying, and that he and his company were not to be trusted.

He was awarded £15,000 for libel and £2,000 for breach of privacy.

The two former friends went to school together in Brighton but fell out about six years ago over a business dispute.

Mr Firsht accused Mr Raphael of bearing a grudge against him and of creating the false Facebook entry with the aim of causing him anxiety and embarrassment.

The judge said Mr Firsht was "plainly a businessman of single-minded drive and dedication".

The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences
Jo Sanders
Media lawyer

But Mr Raphael's company had gone into voluntary liquidation and, by the time the present dispute arose, "Mr Firsht was prospering and highly successful, and Mr Raphael was not".

The judge said Mr Firsht would have accepted an apology if Mr Raphael had offered one at an early stage, thus avoiding the distress and expense of litigation.

Media lawyer, Jo Sanders, of Harbottle & Lewis, said the ruling would change perceptions about social networking sites.

"The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences," she said.

"Sat at home or school or in the office, it's easy to think of social networking sites as harmless fun, that it's like chatting with friends, and that things posted there are either a joke or just a mischievous way of causing embarrassment. This ruling puts an end to that."

"The golden rule should be to only put up information or images you are happy for everyone to see and are happy to put your name to," she added."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7523128.stm

Published: 2008/07/24 16:32:56 GMT

Catalina

Interesting! It's pretty consistent with libel law principles, just applied to a "new" (or not so new, depending on how you look at it) media. If I recall correctly, in the U.S., in order to win a case for libel, you need to show damages, or that you suffered some harm, unless the libel itself falls into one of several special categoies, like business or professional reputation.

The idea is that if someone said you dye your hair dishwater blonde when you really dye it platinum, you'd really not suffer much. But if someone falsely said you regularly steal from your clients (say you're an accountant), that could be so damaging to your livelihood that you need not show a certain amount of damages.

So, can you say whatever you want on the internet? No, but it's still difficult to win a libel case in the U.S. (internet or no) unless the nature of the lies really rise to the level of causing some economic damage or serious serious distress (i.e., nervous breakdown).

This calls to mind the story of a mother in the US who went on line pretending to be a boy and flirted with a teen girl who lived across the street. The girl had once been "best friends" with her daughter but the relationship had deteriorated. The mother carried on the "on line" relationship to the point of a full blown romance. She [in the persona of a teen boy] then turned on the girl and said she had heard terrible things about the girl, etc, etc.

This became totally abusive and the fictitious "boy" told her she wasn't fit to live and should do everyone a favor and kill herself. Unfortunately the girl was in such despair at the "boy's" rejection, that she hanged herself. The mother who had caused the girl's death consoled the bereaved family and helped with the funeral. It took almost a year of work on the daughter's computer and a detective to find the IP address of the lethal messages.

The whole thing is being sorted out legally. There is a civil suit and the possibility of a criminal case. It hasn't been in the news here for some time and I don't have any links to the story. If I dig some up, I will post them.The things that people do, really do have consequences.

Things seem to be changing but for some people it comes too late.

In regard to the story posted by Catalina, I just don't understand the whole idea of a "grudge." Long ago I decided such people are dangerous and not to be trusted. If I meet anyone who seems to be nursing a grudge, I just tiptoe out the door and sign off on that person.

I still Facebook.