Yes, I would like the recourse of suing you for libel in this situation.
And if you would like to protect against that risk you should consider including a "flag" button or something on each post where I, member of public, can get ahold of you personally, without needing to create an account.
Sure but it's only libel if it's not true. And, as the author of this post did, you're always free to update the post as the owners contact you and additional info is made available.
Yes, do that. There's absolutely no second order effects that could possibly happen. We'll just go to the courts for everything. I'm sure it's easy and inexpensive to sue someone for libel in different jurisdictions.
Go ahead! I'm in the USA, where libel isn't illegal and is difficult to show even in civil cases (unlike say the UK). But what you just said was horribly unfactual, so there isn't much to worry about (you have to show what you said was actually true in any case). I mean, if you tell your attorney, I'm sure he will have a good laugh at you (after he takes your money of course!).
Giving someone a medium for free speech is NOT the same as committing the act of libel. If they did want to sue it should be against the OP/commentors, not the site.
Unless you make a new liability law that is pretty specific to this use case, I don't think it's very possible to make slander/libel damages for it, especially considering the US's 1st amendment laws.
Clear view probably today says "I think this is %90 likely to be person X, but I could be wrong" in their UI. That turns it into opinion.
And if you would like to protect against that risk you should consider including a "flag" button or something on each post where I, member of public, can get ahold of you personally, without needing to create an account.
reply