Gina Ford and Mumsnet

[clotilde]

Those of you who saw the news about Gina Ford's legal action against Mumsnet might like to see the
response of the site (and of the poster who made the orginal "serious and offensive libel" that Ford "straps babies to rockets and fires them into south Lebanon").

"I apologise profusely to any childcare guru that I may have offended by suggesting

Comments

[steer]

"I was a bouncing baby... now I'm a bouncing bomb." -- The Teardrop Explodes

Isn't there a "too daft to be believed" defence against libel or is taht only in this country? I understood there was some kind of "it's OK to say something if it's perfectly obvious that it's a lie" -- e.g. "Jefferey Archer gives money to prostitutes" would be libel were it untrue but "Jefferey Archer grates and then eats leprechauns" would not be.

[thirstypixel]

I was pretty sure that the US had that defence as well.

[randomstring]

See

http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/thirdpartycontent.htm

section 5 for a discussion of Godfrey v Demon and also Totalise v Motley Fool.

The only defenses against libel are

a) that it is true,
b) fair comment ('I don't like M&S') and
c) privilege, e.g. in Parliament.

I'd say if this had gone to court, the site would have been found guilty of libel if they hadn't acted to take the postings down as soon as they received the notice.

See also

http://www.newsdesk-uk.com/law/libelcheck.shtml

[steer]

I've looked around a bit more and I think what I said is basically correct.

You list the "only defenses against libel" but for something to be libel it has to damage reputation to a reasonable person. As I understand it something isn't libel if a reasonable person would not believe it could possibly be true. Also mere abuse isn't libel.

In the US there's a specific exemption for satire (as famously used by Larry flynt) which this certainly comes under.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

[sparklielizard]

I seriously get the feeling that Ms. Ford does not understand Internet forums and banter! Okay, it's one thing to react to posts that could have a grain of truth in them but, okay, so I don't know the full story, but this whole thing smacks of waving big threats around because she lost out in a flame war or something ;-) It's cheating!!

[randomstring]

The law is notorious for not having a sense of humour.

[evieb]

So ... Gina Ford doesn't want me to strap Andrew to a rocket and fire at Lebanon ...? Obviously this confuses me as I really thought she wanted me to do it and anything she says about childcare is some kind of message from a higher power, but I am relieved I don't have to turn my baby into a weapon.

I hadn't realised that someone could have so little sense of humour or over act that much. I am not saying that she ought to find it funny, I can see why she doesn't, but it is so obvious it isn't as if anyone would actually believe it of her.