Statutory right of reply

Can anybody from the legal profession please clarify my obligations in terms of the Statutory right of reply, in the context of a blog post that is in the public's interest to know, which contains information about a professional organisation and commercial firm of solicitors. All information in the post is TRUE and backed up with supporting evidence. The narrative is written as objectively as I can achieve.

There is no statutory right for people to reply. As long as what you have posted is not libellous then you have no worries. Link?

I am still composing it, it is highly critical but shows facts backed up with evidence. I believe that it is in the public interest to know, but I dont want to end up the guilty party in all this.

Arnie,

these may help

www.mbites.com/2008/04/18/libel_and_defamation_law_for_bloggers

www.urban75.org/info/libel.html


Hadenoughnow

Excellent, thank you so much, that first post is exactly what I have been looking for.

The post in hand is going to be published on Friday, If anybody from the profession would like to cast an eye over it before I publish I would appreciate any guidance. Reading that first link I think that I am OK, but ultimately I am uneducated and taking on both the SFLA (resolution)and a very big firm of professional solicitors But I am just trying to get at the TRUTH and a bit of equality in treatment.

Arnie, we are asked quite explicitly by the Wikivorce team ot to mention individual firms of solicitors in our posts. I am sure you have legitimate grievances, but I don't think that this is the proper place to air them.

I am not sure what the law is but there have been cases recently of owners of sites being expected to have some responsibility for the content of posts. If there is any risk of a libel case I think it would be wrong to post as it would potentially drag Ian and the team into the situation and distract them from providing the service.

Sadie

Sadie,

In libel law it is indeed possible for not only the writer of the material to be sued .. but also the publisher and the distributor.

There was a very famous case involving Private Eye in which James Goldsmith threatened to sue individual newsagents who stocked the magazine because he was upset about something that had been written.

My impression was that Arnie was proposing to publish this in his own blog - and not on wiki. I would entirely echo your sentiments if the plan was to publish it here. Our wiki legal people are family lawyers and not libel lawyers so it would not be fair to place a burden like this on the site.

Hadenoughnow