| |
|
I would have thought US law would apply
It probably would. The trouble is that there's still a grey area over exactly what "Communication" (one of the three tests to prove defamation, which covers the transmission of the alleged defamation) can be construed as on the net.
In the classic model, it meant that you could sue anyone from the proprietor down to the papergirl for circulating the information (although obviously you'd go for the one with the money).
Now, though, the way packets bounce around, it's not just the people who host the servers (although precendent would suggest that's the best people to go after - individuals like Tom are less likly to be worth much), who knows which routers (possibly even yours) is going to have communicated some of the message.
Even the act of clicking on a link could theoreticaly constitute publishing a defamatory statement on your monitor. Unlikely, I know, but just one of those wrinkles that's going to have to be ironed out sooner or later.
However, a retraction and apology is usually enough evidence that you tried to take the proper steps toward redress, so I'd be surprised if Tom had a problem.
Additionally, as I think I've said elsewhere, there's also the question of "Identification". If the defamation was against someone on the board that most people could readily identify (most of us except George and Cameron), it'd be hard to make a case stand up. If we're talking about an author or a sleb, however, it's a different kettle of fish. |
|
|
It was Neil, wasn't it. 
.