Key takeaways from Paisley v Linehan
- Details
- Hits: 105
Libel on social media: Key takeaways from Paisley v Linehan
The High Court has delivered another significant ruling on online defamation in Paisley v Linehan, in which our firm, Cohen Davis, acted for the claimant, David Paisley.
What was the case of Paisley v Linehan about?
David Paisley, the claimant, took legal action against Graham Linehan over comments posted on Linehan’s Substack page. The case centred around three specific comments in response to an article written by Linehan. These comments, made by third parties, accused Paisley of being a paedophile and of supporting a coordinated strategy by child molesters. The court had to decide whether these comments were defamatory and if they amounted to statements of fact or expressions of opinion.
The defendant, Graham Linehan, is a well-known writer and television producer, best known for creating popular sitcoms such as Father Ted and The IT Crowd. In recent years, he has gained attention for his outspoken views on transgender issues, which have led to significant public debate and controversy. This case highlights the risks of social media discussions and the legal consequences of defamatory statements posted in comment threads. This judgment serves as an important reminder that defamation laws apply just as strictly to online discussions as they do to traditional media. Here’s what you need to know.
The key legal issues in the hearing
The meaning of the words in defamation cases
A crucial question in defamation cases is what the ordinary reader would understand the words to mean. The court found that the comments accused Paisley of serious criminal behaviour, including being a paedophile and participating in a coordinated child exploitation strategy. Some of these statements were judged to be statements of fact, meaning they assert something that can be proven true or false, while others were ruled to be expressions of opinion, which reflect a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective claim. This distinction is critical in defamation law because factual claims can be legally challenged if they are false and defamatory, whereas opinions, provided they are based on disclosed facts and not misleading, are generally protected under free speech principles.
The importance of context in defamation cases
Context is everything in libel law. The court had to determine whether the comments should be read in isolation or as part of a wider discussion. The judgment carefully analysed how each comment evolved over time in the discussion thread, assessing whether additional comments later in the thread changed the meaning of the original defamatory statements. For instance, one of the comments originally accused Paisley of being a ‘nonce’ (a slang term for paedophile).
Linehan later intervened in the thread, calling the comment ‘not helpful’ and warning that it could be legally actionable. The court considered whether Linehan’s response altered how an ordinary reader would understand the initial comment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the original defamatory meaning remained intact despite the later exchanges.
Statement of fact vs. Opinion in defamation cases
A critical defence in defamation cases is that a statement is an opinion rather than a factual claim. The court found that while some of the comments were statements of fact (i.e., alleging Paisley was directly involved in criminal behaviour), others—such as a claim that he was ‘rightly to be described as a paedophile’—were deemed expressions of opinion based on the content of the original article.
The role of the Substack owner or Facebook administrator in defamation
One key aspect of this case was the responsibility of the platform owner, in this case, Linehan, for defamatory statements made by third parties. While Linehan did not post the comments himself, he hosted the discussion on his Substack page. The court’s decision reinforces that hosting and failing to remove defamatory comments can still create legal exposure.
Why the decision in the case of Paisley v Linehan matters
This case highlights several important points for anyone engaging in online discussions
- Deleting or responding to a defamatory comment does not necessarily remove its legal consequences.
- If a statement is defamatory when first posted, later attempts to soften its impact might not prevent liability
- Social media and online forums are not free zones for defamatory statements. If a statement accuses someone of serious criminal conduct, it could lead to legal action.
- Platform owners and moderators should be cautious. Even if you do not personally post defamatory statements, hosting them on your site or failing to remove them could still result in legal trouble.
What should you do if you are defamed on substack or on a Facebook Page?
If you believe you have been defamed on Substack, you need to consider the comments made in the entire context of the platform. Statements that appear defamatory at first glance may actually be regarded as opinion rather than fact, which could make legal action more complicated. Before taking legal steps or threatening to do so, it’s crucial to consult a solicitor specialising in defamation law. Before taking any legal action, it’s crucial to understand the full context of the Substack comments.
What might initially appear defamatory could actually be considered an opinion, which may not be legally actionable. Seeking professional advice early on can help clarify your legal position and prevent unnecessary steps. At Cohen Davis, we offer a fixed-fee initial consultation with no time limit, allowing you to fully explore your options. Our clients often find this invaluable in understanding their legal standing, strategising their next steps, and determining the best approach to take moving forward.
The next step in the case
The Paisley v Linehan case is a wake-up call for anyone who assumes online platforms provide a shield from defamation claims. Words matter, and what is said online can have serious legal consequences. Even when you feel highly passionate about a topic, you should always consider the impact of your words and the potential for litigation. Having said that, the case is still ongoing. The case will now proceed to trial to determine any potential defences the defendant may raise in response to the court’s findings that the publications complained of are defamatory at common law and to the findings of fact.
The trial will also assess whether these findings establish that our client, Mr. Paisley, has suffered harm and, if so, determine the extent of that harm. Additionally, the court will consider the appropriate level of damages to be awarded, taking into account the impact of the defamatory statements and the evidence presented. At Cohen Davis, we continue to provide expert legal guidance in online defamation cases, ensuring our clients understand their rights and the best course of action following a court ruling. If you have online defamation questions, get in touch with our team for expert advice.
Are you a victim of defamation? Time might be of the essence. Call us now for legal advice on +44 207 183 4123 or send a request and we will contact you as soon as possible.
