My Lords, Clause 13 currently enables the court to order the operator of a website to remove defamatory material in circumstances where a claimant successfully brings proceedings against the poster of defamatory material online. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised the question specifically of whether this provision could be extended to cover situations where a claimant successfully brings an action against the publisher of offline material, but a secondary publisher refuses to stop distributing, selling or exhibiting material containing the defamatory statement. Clause 10 would prevent an action for defamation being brought against the secondary publisher if it was reasonably practicable to sue the primary publisher. While in the great majority of cases it is likely that secondary publishers would act responsibly and remove material when requested to do so, we consider it desirable to close any possible loophole. Amendment 22 is intended to capture any situation where the material in question is publicly disseminated by a secondary publisher. I beg to move the amendment.
Defamation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Defamation Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
743 c249 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-11-20 10:12:12 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-05/13020580000101
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-05/13020580000101
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-05/13020580000101