Keith-Smith v Williams

Last updated

Keith-Smith v Williams
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court High Court of Justice
Decided21 March 2006
Citation[2006] EWHC 860 (QB)
Court membership
Judge sittingMacduff J

Keith-Smith v Williams is a 2006 English libel case that confirmed that existing libel laws applied to internet discussion. [1]

It was important because it was seen as the first UK internet libel case that represented two individuals rather than one party being an Internet Service Provider, [2] and was the first British case involving a successful prosecution of an individual poster within a chat room. [3] [4] The Manchester Evening News claimed that this contradicted a common assumption among bloggers that it was the publisher and not the writer who was responsible for any libel claims that they may generate. [5]

Mark Stephens, the head of media law at Stephens Finer Innocent, characterised the case as "a dark day for freedom of speech with broad implications", [6] which was denied by the plaintiff Michael Keith Smith. [7]

The case involved unemployed ex-teacher Tracy Williams falsely accusing a former UKIP candidate, Michael Keith Smith, of being a sexual offender and racist bigot. [8] Williams had posted as Gosforth. [9]

The court ordered her to pay £10,000 plus costs. [10] [11] Although the accusations were made in a Yahoo discussion group with about 100 members, damages were awarded as the remarks were available throughout the world. [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neil Hamilton (politician)</span> British politician from Wales, former UKIP leader

Mostyn Neil Hamilton is a British politician and former barrister who was leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) from 2020 to 2024. He was the Conservative member of parliament (MP) for Tatton from 1983 to 1997 and a UKIP Member of the Senedd (MS) for Mid and West Wales from 2016 to 2021.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The Conservative Democratic Alliance (CDA) was a political pressure group from the United Kingdom. The CDA referred to itself as the "authentic voice of conservatism". It closed in December 2008.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Free Dominion was a Canadian conservative internet forum. The site used the phrase "Principled Conservativism" to describe its ideology.

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Michael Keith Smith, was the founder-chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, a British right-wing pressure group. He was also the successful claimant in Keith-Smith v Williams, a landmark English libel case in 2006 that confirmed that existing libel laws applied to internet discussion. Smith died after jumping from the keep at Portchester Castle on 3 July 2010.

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.

Political repression of cyber-dissidents is the oppression or persecution of people for expressing their political views on the Internet.

<i>Funding Evil</i> 2003 book by Rachel Ehrenfeld

Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It is a book written by counterterrorism researcher Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and the Economic Warfare Institute. It was published by Bonus Books of Los Angeles, California in August 2003.

Richard Warman is an Ottawa-based lawyer who is active in human rights law. Warman worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) from July 2002 until March 2004. He is best known as the primary instigator of actions related to Internet content under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act against people including white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Censorship in Denmark has been prohibited since 1849 by the Constitution:

§ 77: Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i> 2011 US legal case concerning online defamation

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jane Collins</span> British politician (born 1962)

Jane Maria Collins is a British politician and horse show-jumper who served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for Yorkshire and the Humber from 2014 to 2019. She was elected in May 2014 as a member of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), but defected to the Brexit Party in 2019 in the last months of her membership of the European Parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Europe</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Europe provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in the Americas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Africa</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Africa provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Africa.

References

  1. Warning to chatroom users after libel award for man labelled a Nazi, Owen Gibson, 23 March 2006, The Guardian
  2. "In Keith-Smith v Williams, the Claimant a former UK Independence party member has been awarded 10,000 GB Sterling and is important as it represents probably the first case of two private individuals at court as well as the use or abuse of blogging." Libel on the Internet? Archived 15 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine , Michael Coyle, Lawdit Solicitors
  3. Chat room insults lead to internet libel victory
  4. more about that UK libel decision Archived 20 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine , cybersoc.com
  5. Bloggers beware of libel trials by Simon Donohue, Friday, 24 March 2006
  6. Verdict casts dark cloud over freedom of speech, Times, 22 March 2006
  7. Free speech and internet law, Letters to the Editor, Times, 28 March 2006
  8. Online libel costs woman £10,000, BBC, 22 March 2006
  9. legal case transcript
  10. [http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2006 UKIP can didate wins £10,000 for internet libel] Archived 13 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  11. Damages on Online Defamatory Statements in UK Archived 9 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine EDRI.org
  12. Smith v Williams (UK, 2006) Caslon Analytics