PREMIER CONCERN: rape claims stir Web publishers

Web site publishers and Internet service providers (ISPs) should not overreact in relation to libel concerns following the current furore over alleged rape claims against Premiership footballers, lawyers warned last week.

As many chat rooms and discussion boards have been closed for fear that defamatory comments may be posted relating to the allegations, libel lawyers emphasised that not knowing a message is posted remains a defence for owners and ISPs.

Liz Hartley, the head of media and technology at City firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, said: 'This problem of Internet chat rooms is more than adequately catered for by section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996.

It is clear that [a Web site or ISP] is not liable for content until it knows that it is carrying something defamatory.

At that point it should remove it.'

She added, 'If you see a message which could be defamatory, don't agonise over it - just delete it.'

Where there is a particularly high risk of defamatory messages being posted additional steps can be taken.

Dan Tench, a defamation specialist with City firm Olswang, said: 'Web sites concerned about libel can post up a warning to visitors not to disseminate any information about individuals.

If they were concerned, for example, about libel in relation to the accusations against Premiership footballers, they could post a notice strictly warning that no messages are to be posted on that subject.'

Mr Tench said that, in most cases, the courts would be reluctant to consider that taking a Web site off-line was the only reasonable course of action.

He added: 'If anything the law will be extended.

At the moment it is very unfair, because once an ISP or Web site has notification, it loses its protection completely.

That could infringe freedom of expression.'

Group legal director of telecommunications company NTL Robert Mackenzie said: 'We have a policy to remove anything which may be defamatory very quickly.

But the law can be very difficult for ISPs.

'Recently, an individual employee found himself being sued because he had copied something onto his home computer.

He was working from home and looking at the piece to see whether it could be defamatory.

'The courts could also be more sympathetic in their approach to costs.

Libel actions can be very expensive to defend but it is very hard to win an application for security for costs.'

Rachel Rothwell