Joined: July 2011
DNA Jock continues to avoid the core issue in response to my explanation "To answer you, Jock, the reason why the situation is different in Alan’s case is that he and the site are both under EU jurisdiction. That means a UK court is much more likely to accept a libel case than if both the person complaining and the alleged defamer were in the US."
|Say what? That’s a moronic response.|
We were talking about the legal exposure faced by the website operator, not the alleged defamer. I suspect that a court would be MORE likely to hear a case against the operator if the defamer were outside their jurisdiction.
That's simply not the situation. While the UK is still a libel haven, they have tightened up their rules. If the website owner complies with the law's requirement to provide any available contact details about the accused, and both the accuser and accused are outside of the UK, it's very unlikely that a UK court will take the case.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do work with a number of EU lawyers on GDPR and related issues.)
|As I explained to you last summer, the website operator can discharge their legal obligations quite easily, if they can SUCCESSFULLY identify the alleged defamer. Pretty easy for Lizzie to ID Alan, I reckon; keiths, on the other hand, has been more private, but I expect it is doable.|
Not that I needed that explained, but fine. I agree. That demonstrates further that your "concern" about the risk to TSZ was nothing more than a flimsy excuse to settle a personal score against keiths.
|All that aside, the primary difference remains: the “honest opinion” defense, but I do not expect you (or phoodoo) to be able to understand that.|
Unlike keiths' post, Alan's accusations go beyond "honest opinion." He has made per se defamatory statements about three people, two of whom are easily identifiable in the real world. He is the de facto operator of the site, after choosing to remove an admin appointed by the putative owner. His behavior poses a far greater legal risk to TSZ than anything keiths did.
Given that, you have two options. You can apply the same standard you claimed to apply to keiths and ban Alan for 30 days, or you can implicitly admit that your abuse of keiths was personally motivated and that you are a hypocrite.