[LINK] RFI: school student's internet defamation

[Roger Clarke]

If there's anything materially awry with my IANAL non-advice on this 
matter, please let me know so that I can pass it on.


>At 9:07 +1100 27/11/06, xxxxx wrote:
>>Hi Roger,
>>
>>I was wondering if you might have a moment to consider:
>>
>>1. I recently published on a wikipedia page (the relevant school's 
>>page) a criticism of a school principal that contained material 
>>that is not entirely accurate.
>>
>>2. Assuming wikipedia provides my IP address, what can the school 
>>principal do about this issue?
>>
>>Is it true that I allegedly defamed them in the US, as author of 
>>the defamatory material, on wikipedia?
>>Can this then translate to [my state]?
>>
>>How easy would it be to obtain my IP address (dynamic) from the 
>>hosting provider?
>>
>>The material wasnt threatening or anything, just a complaint about 
>>their leadership and unfortunately not entirely accurate.
>>
>>Thanks  xxxxx


>Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:23:50 +1100
>
>G'day xxxxx
>
>As a non-lawyer, and acting in a social context not a professional 
>one, this is neither authoritative nor advice ...
>
>If you look at the 'history' tab at the top of the Wikipedia page, 
>your IP-address may well be recorded against your contribution, as 
>well as the date and time.  Normal pre-trial discovery processes 
>could well enable a litigant to acquire from the ISP the subscriber 
>identity to which the IP-address was allocated at the time.  (That's 
>subject to lots of qualifications though, such as the commencement 
>of an action, and service of notice on the ISP before the ISP 
>discards the logs for that day).
>
>The effect of the Gutnick judgement is that a web-page is deemed to 
>be published everywhere at once.  An aggrieved party can sue in any 
>jurisdiction in which they have a reputation to defend.  With all 
>due respects to the Principal, it's not likely that he or she would 
>have a reputation outside [your state], so [your state] it would 
>have to be.
>
>In practice, defamation law is expensive (and in many respects very 
>stupid), because it was designed by lawyers to satisfy the needs of 
>well-off clients.  It would be rather, maybe make that very, unusual 
>for a Principal to use it against a student.
>
>Given that you already acknowledge that the information was (in 
>part) incorrect, perhaps the best approach is to use the medium to 
>declare the error and correct it.
>
>If the statement is still up, you could adjust it to something 
>that's accurate, and critical without being destructive.  Depending 
>on the harm that might be seen to have been done by the original 
>statement, a straightforward apology for that bit could accompany 
>the corrected statement.
>
>Hope that helps a bit.
>
>Regards  ...  Roger

-- 
Roger Clarke                  http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng  Australian National University
Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program      University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW