Truth be told, the report is quite limited, but it doesn't sound like this law changes very much in the UK.
Under English law (technically no such thing as "UK law") the courts have had power since 1974 to order one person (person A) to disclose the identity of another person (person B) when person B is guilty of a tort and the claimant needs to know who they are in order to sue them - even where person A is innocent and has done nothing wrong. That was developed by the courts rather than by the legislature.
The other thing worth bearing in mind is that in England libel and slander laws are heavily slanted in favour of claimants. The claimant only has to prove that the defamatory comment was made: it is then for the defendant to prove to the satisfaction of the court that it was actually true. Otherwise they are liable. Accordingly, everyone in the UK from journalists to online posters tend to be quite cautious about making rash and unsubstantiated statements.
---------- Post Merged at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 02:25 PM ----------
As an addendum to this, there was a recent case in England over the summer whereby a gay porn producer used this legal device to force internet companies to disclose the names of people who had illegally downloaded his films without paying any royalties. The court ordered the internet companies to turn over the data, even though the claim was thinly disguised blackmail, the producer had good violation of copyright claims against those persons and the court held he was entitled to pursue them.
Under English law (technically no such thing as "UK law") the courts have had power since 1974 to order one person (person A) to disclose the identity of another person (person B) when person B is guilty of a tort and the claimant needs to know who they are in order to sue them - even where person A is innocent and has done nothing wrong. That was developed by the courts rather than by the legislature.
The other thing worth bearing in mind is that in England libel and slander laws are heavily slanted in favour of claimants. The claimant only has to prove that the defamatory comment was made: it is then for the defendant to prove to the satisfaction of the court that it was actually true. Otherwise they are liable. Accordingly, everyone in the UK from journalists to online posters tend to be quite cautious about making rash and unsubstantiated statements.
---------- Post Merged at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 02:25 PM ----------
As an addendum to this, there was a recent case in England over the summer whereby a gay porn producer used this legal device to force internet companies to disclose the names of people who had illegally downloaded his films without paying any royalties. The court ordered the internet companies to turn over the data, even though the claim was thinly disguised blackmail, the producer had good violation of copyright claims against those persons and the court held he was entitled to pursue them.
Last edited by a moderator:
