An End to Babies on Rockets!

By Dan O'Connor May 10th, 2007
In Stories

Regular readers of our blog (both of you) will know that RMM (well, me) has been following the Gina Ford v. Mumsnet case with something akin to goggled-eyed fascination. We may, in fact, be the only digital comms planners to have a blog with more than one post which includes the phrase “Babies on Rockets” in the title. (if we’re not, let us know!)
However, I might finally be getting some closure, as the High Court has judged that Mumsnet must apologise to childcare specialist Ford for several defamatory postings about her on their forums - including, notably, the maginificent allegation that she “strapped babies onto rockets and fired them into Southern Lebanon”. Mumsnet have also been ordered to pay costs. In effect, British law now holds that the internet is equivalent to print media. Justine Ford Roberts, the founder of mumsnet, makes a very interesting point:

“This is a print defamation law for a digital age, and it has not caught up with what is going on the net,” she said. Mumsnet wants the law clarified to define, for example, how swiftly a website must remove abusive or offensive postings.

I think the judgement is unfortunate. Leaving aside the general silliness of British libel and defamation laws, it means that it is websites are punished for what people say write, rather than the people making defamatory statements themselves. To stretch a digital analogy, it’s like suing a brewery for the graffitti people write in a pub toilet.

Anyway, RMM will now be constantly monitoring our comments pages for any defamatory statements about Ms Ford, especially the utterly unfounded allegation that she straps babies to windmills in order to observe global warming patterns. Tsssk.

10 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Simon // May 11, 2007 at 9:00 am

    I suggest you get the name right! Its Justine Roberts and Gina Ford, - not Justine Ford!

  • 2 Dan O'Connor // May 11, 2007 at 9:32 am

    Thanks, Simon - duly rectified.

  • 3 woodstock // May 11, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    !! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !!! !

    by repeating the allegedly defamatory comment RMM may also be liable for defamation. just a thought.

    ! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !

  • 4 Mat Morrison // May 11, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    Thank you, Woodstock, for this free legal advice.

    I think that it’s important to point out (should Gina Ford wish to sue us for defamation) that Dan copied the original statement from the Guardian. Not to tell tales, or anything, the Guardian wrote:

    Ms Ford has demanded a public apology from the parenting website Mumsnet over accusations made on a discussion forum, including the sarcastic claim that she “straps babies to rockets and fires them into south Lebanon”

    Just goes to show. Birds know nothing about the law.

    There’s a brilliant article on how this fiasco started by Josephine Wall - the person who wrote the original comment.

    What’s impressive, I suppose, is that whoever manages the Gina Ford brand (could be her, I suppose) was alert enough to pick the story up off a forum. What’s much less impressive is their approach to resolution.

    Repeat after me: “threatening someone with legal action to kill a story doesn’t work any more.”

    Child experts should play nicely.

  • 5 Mat Morrison // May 11, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    This is Gina Ford.

    The BBC posted that picture, so we can’t be sued for showing that either, I reckon.

  • 6 Dan O'Connor // May 11, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    To quote California’s most recent prison inmate, “That’s hot”.

  • 7 Mat Morrison // May 11, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Nice article by Justine Roberts (one of the Mumsnet co-founders) from back when it seemed that this was just a childish fit of pique.

    Has Ford (like Sitting Bull) won the battle but lost the war? (Have I got that the right way round, Dan?)

  • 8 Dan O'Connor // May 11, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Sitting Bull did indeed win the battle and lose the war.

    Gina kinda looks like she starred in John Waters movies in the 80s.

  • 9 woodstock // May 11, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

    in the words of Lord Millett in Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd:

    “I would also give Mr Grobbelaar liberty to apply to the High Court for a suitably worded injunction to restrain any repetition of the allegation that he actually fixed matches. By his own conduct Mr Grobbelaar has destroyed the value of his own reputation, and this is sufficient to disentitle him to any but nominal damages. But it would not justify the defendants in republishing an allegation the truth of which a jury have found that they have been unable to substantiate. Such conduct would still constitute an actionable wrong. Mr Grobbelaar may have no reputation to lose; but that does not make him an object of ridicule, fair game for every slander that an imaginative journalist can concoct.”

  • 10 Mat Morrison // May 11, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    Lord Bingham:

    The tort of defamation protects those whose reputations have been unlawfully injured. It affords little or no protection to those who have, or deserve to have, no reputation deserving of legal protection. Until 9 November 1994 when the newspaper published its first articles about him, the appellant’s public reputation was unblemished. But he had in fact acted in a way in which no decent or honest footballer would act and in a way which could, if not exposed and stamped on, undermine the integrity of a game which earns the loyalty and support of millions.

    Grobelaar was awarded £1 damages, and ordered to pay the Sun’s costs. Being unable to do so, he was declared bankrupt.

Leave a Comment