In Which I Agree With Mumsnet

Mumsnet is one of those lefty Guardian-led mummy knows best type of sites I wouldn’t go near with the proverbial barge pole. However, like them, I am opposed to the latest little piece of poisonous effluent to exude from MPs’ arses.

A joint parliamentary committee says it wants a “cultural shift” so that posts under pseudonyms are not considered “true, reliable or trustworthy”.

It says websites which identify authors and publish complaints alongside comments should get legal protection.

Given that is it none of their damned business (I think I need to write a macro so as to save constantly typing those words), I will continue to publish under a pseudonym. Whether you treat my words as trustworthy or not is up to you, the reader. All I will say, is that as a reader, blogs are generally a source of higher quality comment than the execrable journalists who produce the cack that passes for opinion in the mainstream press.

Given that mainstream journalists are willing to break the law to get a story, regularly get it wrong, given that they are willing to defame and lie in order to sell copy, when they are prepared to make it up (Johann Hari, anyone?), why does having a name at the bottom of the article make any difference whatsoever?

When I read a blogger talking about a subject they know and understand intimately, I am more inclined to trust what they have to say than I would a half-arsed, ignorant journo pontificating on subjects about which they know the square root of bugger all. I’ve mentioned it before, but whenever these incompetents start to discuss railway matters or motorcycling, for example, I always find flaws in what they say. This is because they are not subject experts and I am. Therefore, I do not trust journalists. Pseudonymity is neither here nor there in that regard.

As for defamation, the law as it stands is clear. Yes, we do need reform of the libel laws, but these idiots want more of the same. If Britain is the libel capital of the world, this proposal makes it more so, not less. Ordinary people need access to the law in the event of newspapers printing falsehoods and character assassinations –  such as happened recently to murder suspects who were entirely innocent. It wasn’t anonymous folk on the Internet who deliberately and maliciously spread unfounded gossip which, in the event of them being charged would have undermined a fair trial and in the event, left them marked for life. No, it was the mainstream press. Any such comment on fora and blogs pales into insignificance compared.

The biggest problem with the proposals is that someone can take a dislike to what you have said and a takedown notice is issued. Never mind that what you have said is true –  under these proposals, the complaint is enough. The idea that someone can shout “defamation” and we have to take an article down will be a malicious plaintiff’s paradise.

The notice and take-down procedure would mandate that, upon receiving a complaint, website editors would need to publish the complaint next to the original article. If the complainant wishes to push the matter further and get a take-down order, they can initiate a defamation action which would be cheaper and more streamlined than it currently is. It would involve both parties submitting a comment to a defamation judge who would then make a decision on the case.

This will apply to public parts of social media sites, such as Twitter, forums and public Facebook pages, as well as blogs and online publications. Mumsnet and TripAdvisor were both specifically named by the report. It will apply equally to sites that are moderated and sites that are not.

The scenario for anonymous postings – articles and presumably videos and sound tracks – is even tougher. If one complaint is received, the web editor or website hoster will have to take the post down, unless the writer or creator is willing to identify him/herself.

From the BBC article:

It says the aim of its proposal is to reduce damage “inflicted by the mischievous and the malicious”.

As the site admin both here and Orphans of Liberty, I will readily take down stuff that breaches the comments policy both here and over there and defamation is covered. There is, therefore, not a problem. Fair comment, however, will remain. Some people take exception to fair comment and I’ve had a few complaints recently about my comments. They can fuck themselves, frankly. This is my place and I will comment as I see fit. I do not libel anyone, so if people don’t like what I write or the style I choose, well, they can just lump it.

But Mumsnet, a parenting website, says many of its members rely on the ability to ask questions or post comments anonymously.

Many of the women posting messages do so under a “user name”, rather than their real name – and the site is worried the proposal will mean more people demanding messages be taken down.

And I think they are correct in this assessment. According to Mumsnet, they had to take down posts that were uncomplimentary product reviews, which opens another horrible little can of worms. From time to time, I’ll write a product review. If I write a bad one under my pseudonym, will that now mean that the manufacturer can cry “defamation” and insist that the post is taken down?

I will continue to post pseudonymously. There was a point shortly after setting up Orphans when I thought about switching to using my real name. However, now I am all the more determined to keep my pseudonym. If these bastard MPs don’t like it, then it stays. Fuck ’em. Fuck them all.