Blogging, Facebooking and the law continued

As a PhD student I’m now revelling in the luxury of paid-for legal services that were previously out of bounds to the average punter. This is why legal blogging is so important – it communicates the stuff behind the paywalls to a wider audience.

I found the relatively new blog Inforrm a very useful bridge before I got hold of a university log-in, but even with my newly acquired access to legal journals, the site remains an extremely useful way of digesting media law news.

Informm has written an introductory guide to blogging in the UK, referencing several other blog lists, which I heartily recommend. It includes its “personal suggestions for of UK blawgs – focussed on those at the ‘serious’ end of the scale, providing useful (and regularly updated) information for practitioners or with some relevance to those with an interest in media related legal issues.”

In today’s media round-up Inforrm picks up on the BBC’s report about a solicitor’s firm which says it has “taken forward six defamation actions involving Facebook in the last nine months.”

Richard Wilson, blogger at Don’t Get Fooled Again, has rightly criticised the article for some of its flaws (via Twitter) but even at the risk of exacerbating the problem, I’m glad to see the issue raised.

There needs to be investigation in this area, but from very informal anecdotal evidence, I’d say that many Facebook users are unware of the libel risks. This is something that should be addressed, through further research and better online guidance.

This entry was posted in blogging, social media, social networking and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Blogging, Facebooking and the law continued

  1. Pingback: Law and Media Round Up – 1 November 2010 « Inforrm's Blog

  2. Matt Wardman says:

    Hi Judith

    I’m with @dontgetfooled.

    The Beeb are accepting what is no more than an allegation – that in the complainant’s opinion a statement is defamatory – as fact. That is not even neutral.

    We all know that statements made by solicitors/lawyers in non-evidential letters have as much authority as they would on toilet paper, but with a threatening name attached. Unfortunately some members of the public don’t.

    Equally, anyone who makes allegations of violence without solid proof deserves to be exposed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s