Totalise, the UK-based ISP, last month won a court order requiring
web sites Motley Fool and Interactive Investor International to
disclose the identity of the person who anonymously posted
defamatory material to their discussion boards.
Mr Justice Robert Owen in the High Court allowed an application
under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 for an order for disclosure of
the identity of a web site user who used the name "Zeddust".
The Act provides:
“No court may require a person to disclose…
the source of information contained in a publication for which he
is responsible, unless it can be established to the satisfaction of
the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice
or national security or for the prevention of disorder or
crime.”
The Motley Fool and Interactive Investor discussion boards acted
as discussion forums for various companies. Zeddust began posting
defamatory comments on Motley Fool's web site. After complaints by
Totalise, Zeddust was temporarily removed and then finally banned.
Totalise sought disclosure of Zeddust's identity. Motley Fool
refused. Postings began appearing on Interactive Investor's web
site. Interactive Investor removed the postings but refused
disclosure. Totalise went to court, seeking an order for disclosure
of identity.
Justice Owen considered that the protection provided to
newspapers by the Contempt of Court Act had no application to
Motley Fool and Interactive Investor because neither took
responsibility for what was posted on their discussion boards nor
exercised editorial control. He also believed that, in any event,
disclosure was necessary “in the interests of justice.”
Justice Owen was satisfied that the contents of the postings
were defamatory and considered that, in view of the potential
audience for the postings and the potential harm to Totalise, “the
balance fell in favour of [Totalise] otherwise one could defame
with impunity on web sites.”
