Today is Blog Action Day, an annual nonprofit event that “aims to unite the world’s bloggers, podcasters and videocasters, to post about the same issue on the same day.” Last year the theme was the environment. This year the theme is world poverty (something I could use as a snarky lift-off comment on the coming recession, but I’ll resist that this point).

The real point is that, even in a bad recession in the Western World, we will rarely really understand true poverty. Such as what it is like to have to walk 5 miles to a well to fetch water every day. Or to see most of your children die young through malnutrition. My father, now retired, was a research scientist (actually he still goes into his London university lab to say hi – he just can’t keep away from the work). All his life he has been researching a vaccine for Malaria, a disease which kills between one and three million people, the majority of whom are young children in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The causes of Malaria are complex, everything from the standing water mosquitos breed in, to the mosquito carrier itself, to the massive complexity of the disease, which seems to morph at every stage of its life-cycle, making a vaccine near impossible to develop.

But it’s clear that one of the greatest weapons we have against poverty is education. If you can educate someone to use a mosquito net, you will have already improved the chances of their family surviving, thus broken the cycle of poverty which keeps every new generation from developing. And that’s where the technology industry can help. Already, the mobile phone has proved its worth in creating a sort of trading platform for African farmers and Indian fisherman to check prices at the local village markets for their produce. Mere SMS is a powerful thing. But that’s not enough. You can’t really read articles and browser the Web on a mobile, or educate children. So the efforts of Nicholas Negroponte to create a cheap laptop (under $100) for children in developing countries has been one of the great projects of our time. It’s such a pity that some people inside Microsoft and Intel appeared, according to some, to have done their best to stop it ever happening. Thankfully, that is not the official line of those organisations, and I hope they remedy their well-intentioned words with ever more action.

At TechCrunch, we generally think information is most powerful when it lives in the “Cloud”, hence the project to create a cheap cloud computer tablet for under $200. That’s not a project for children in poverty specifically, but since the whole idea is open source, the ideas could be applied anywhere.

Personally I was heartened by the Simputer project in India a few years ago. A handheld device like a mobile on an open platform. It may well be the case that Google’s Android ends up being the cheap, open operating system which could drive simple web tablets for developing countries as well as mobiles.

But for now it looks like the mobile phone is very much going to be the single most important piece of tech in developing countries going forward. You can use it to message and talk and it can be charged from a car battery. WiFi is no real use across the vast distances in Africa, and WiMax is still a pipe-dream. A few years ago the StarSight project looked like it was poised to WiFi-up Africa, though it seems not to have made much dent as yet.

Anyway, if you want to blog about poverty today, then why not register your blog and do something.

Blog Action Day 2008 Poverty from Blog Action Day on Vimeo.

It turns out that bloggers – along with the rest of the media – are also now able to make use of a special form of privilege, known as “The Reynolds defense of Responsible Journalism.” This requires a Defendant (that’s you the blogger) to show that the publication was:

(1) in the public interest

(2) that the you met the standard of Responsible Journalism on the date the blog post went live

Key to this is that the defence is not dependant on proving Truth, which is usually the defense a media outfit relies on and is often really hard to get at. That is a big deal. In other words, you don’t have to prove what you are blogging about someone is true, but you have to prove you met the standard of “Responsible Journalism” before you pressed the Publish button.

So if you publish material of public interest “in any medium” then bloggers, by definition, can use this defense.

Most critical to your defense is the requirement that the subject of the blog post must be:

1. Given the precise allegations that are to be published

2. A meaningful opportunity to respond to them

3. The gist of that response should be published in a balanced way

I am re-printing below what was sent to me in a word document. Let’s spread this knowledge…

Primer on Defamation for Bloggers

——————————————–

The elements of a cause of action for defamation are:

1. A defamatory (pejorative) statement.

2. Published by the Defendant.

3. Reasonably understood to refer to the Claimant.

Be aware that repeating a statement makes you liable for it. It is no defense to libel that one was merely repeating the statements of another—this is the repetition rule. In addition, the republication rule means you can be liable for damages for all foreseeable republications by others who repeat it. This stems from the fact that every of a libel is a new libel, and each publisher is answerable for his act to the same extent as if it originated with him.

Once the Claimant has proved the above, the burden shifts to the Defendant to establish one of 3 primary defenses:

• Truth (justification)

• Fair Comment (honest opinion based on true facts)

• Privilege.

If the Defendant cannot make out a defense, the Claimant will succeed and the defamatory statement, if written becomes a Libel, and if oral, a Slander. The Claimant is then entitled as of right, to an award of general damages without need for proof of damage because it is presumed that some damage will flow from the invasion of the right to reputation.

The real defense is privilege. The others are too onerous.

The media now has a special form of privilege, the Reynolds defense of Responsible Journalism. This Reynolds defense requires a Defendant to show that the publication was (1) in the public interest; and (2) that the Defendant met the standard of Responsible Journalism as at the date of publication. The defense is not dependant on proving Truth. It is the main defense the media will rely on.

The courts have indicated that this will be available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium. That means bloggers.

Bloggers should therefore be aware of the 10 point test below from Reynolds v Times [1999] UKHL 45. Most critical are the requirement that the subject of the article must be given the precise allegations that are to be published and a meaningful opportunity to respond to them and the gist of that response should be published in a balanced way. The table below is designed to act as a prompt or checklist.

The 10 point test



1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.

In plain English:

This affects the rest, if it’s career ending then all the more important that due caution is exercised.

2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.

In plain English:

The hook on which everything else will be hung, this is the reason the public should know, irrespective of the fact that the writer can’t prove its true and it might not be.

3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.

In plain English:

What is the quality, how reliable are they, how direct is their knowledge? Are they biased, holding a grudge or beyond reproach? Are they being paid for the story? The answers to these questions should inform the writer of the level of verification necessary. Even if the identity of the source is withheld—as may be appropriate, these questions must be asked and answered.

4. The steps taken to verify the information.

In plain English:

What or who verified the source’s information? What steps were taken to verify even if unsuccessful or did they not bother? Who did not verify?

5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.

In plain English:

What is the quality? Are they uncorroborated allegations or the subject of official inquiries, investigations or findings? Rumor and speculation has no status nor does the premature allocation of blame. Care should be exercised.

6. The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.

In plain English:

News is a perishable commodity but is there an urgent need for the public to be told of untested and highly damaging allegations? The writer’s own interest in a scoop is not relevant nor is their convenience or deadline.

7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.

In plain English:

A meaning opportunity to respond to the precise allegations should be given. Door stopping, calls with half an hour before print/broadcast and ambushing are not a proper opportunity to give a measured response to very serious allegations.

8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side of the story.

In plain English:

Formulaic references to a denial may not be enough nor any longer will the one paragraph at the end provide sufficient balance to an article full of allegations of the utmost seriousness laid out in great detail.

9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.

In plain English:

Sensational will cost the writer as will adopting mere allegations as facts, premature allocation of blame.

10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

In plain English:

The writer’s subjective belief as to the truth of the story is important.

Where publication is continuing in an online form –once the writer/publisher is advised of its untruth or the commencement of a libel claim –they can lose the benefit of the defense if continuing to publish without correction or qualification. So a story that originally qualified for the defense can lose it later if events render continuing publication irresponsible in light of facts of matters which have changed. It is now common practice for notices to be affixed online to inform readers that the item is the subject of a libel action.

This article does not provide legal advice but rather general information. It is not a complete discussion nor a substitute for legal advice. This is general information provided on an as-is basis and no warranties are given and no relationship created.

McEvedy & Associates

www.mcevedy.eu

However, after a long “time out” I am back again and happy to say that TechCrunch has decided to show its firm commitment to this market and to editorial independence. For my part, it’s great to be editing the site and I want people to be re-assured that TechCrunch UK & Ireland is here to stay.

The other sites I have been working on recently – including mbites.com – remain personal projects, but I will do all my ‘news breaking’ and heavy blogging about the Web 2.0, tech and startups business on TechCrunchUKI. I’ll also be contributing to TechCrunch US.

To contact me:

Email: mike [at] mbites dot com

Mobile: +44 77 2029 1095

Skype: mikegbutcher

More info on me: http://mbites.com/contact

1. The terms can change at any time of Facebook’s choosing.

2. Facebook is legally for personal use only (only actual people can create profiles. And you’re not supposed to profit from it. A profile for a business technically would be banned/deleted).

3. A single, individual user account (you can’t – under their T&Cs – have two accounts on Facebook)

4. You’re giving up a HUGE license (posting content gives Facebook a license to do whatever they want with your content).

5. Applications are NOT guaranteed safe (In other words, “installer beware.” A malicious application developer could break through Facebook’s security protocols and expose your info. That would probably be difficult to do, but Facebook wouldn’t have to take the blame).

6. Disputes are arbitrated under Delaware law in the US (If Facebook does something horridly wrong and you want to sue you can’t because you’ve already agreed to “final and binding arbitration”)

7. You surrender “all submissions” (If you give them a good idea for Facebook it becomes their property)

8. Privacy is NOT guaranteed: “[W]e cannot and do not guarantee that User Content you post on the Site will not be viewed by unauthorized persons. We are not responsible for circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures contained on the Site… …Please keep in mind that if you disclose personal information in your profile or when posting comments, messages, photos, videos, Marketplace listings or other items , this information may become publicly available.”

If somebody hacks Facebook, steals all your content and contact info you have no remedy against Facebook.

Brunch Bites 1.0, the first “salon” style event from Bites Media (the new mini-network of digital business blogs: tbites, mediabites, mobbites, musicbites) went very well today. In attendance were a wide variety of people drawn from digital media, marketing, mobile, music and the startup world of Web 2.0. These included Luke Razzell who is currently developing a Facebook application called Blog Friends; Walid Al Saqqaf, co-founder of TrustedPlaces; David Jennings, author of a book about to be published on social media and music (which I’ll review soon); mobile guru Helen Keegan of Beepmarketing; Thayer Driver from Chinwag; a new startup still in stealth mode; Anthony Goh, advertising strategist; Lloyd Davis; and serial Internet entrepreneur Steve Bowbrick, who I described as the Grande Dame of the UK internet industry. (I was trying to be reverential but it came out wrong!) Look out for the next Brunch Bites on August 29 (venue to be announced) or join the Facebook group or keeping an eye on bitesmedia.com / mbites.com. There are some photos on Flickr already (thanks Thayer! and here are mine) which make me look – entirely incorrectly – like I was holding court, but which were taken during the two minutes when I just outlined what the event was about an introduced people to each other. Honest!