Aside from libel and invasion of privacy laws, there are also internet and forum rules and regulations. Plus common sense and courtesy!

Generally speaking, for a living individual who is not a convicted murderer, yes always use initials or a fake name.

Do not reveal a city or employer or other information specific enough to give the identity away.

Be careful to say that you are NOT stating this individual is the Zodiac, but merely asking questions and expressing an OPINION that this individual might be worth examining as a possible person of interest in the case.

Would it not be true too that, if a poi was deceased, the family of the poi could also sue for damages?

Soze

I don’t know,I don’t think so. It would have to be proven that their reputation or character was damaged,but kind of hard for a dead person to have their reputation harmed.

Aside from libel and invasion of privacy laws, there are also internet and forum rules and regulations. Plus common sense and courtesy!

Generally speaking, for a living individual who is not a convicted murderer, yes always use initials or a fake name.

Do not reveal a city or employer or other information specific enough to give the identity away.

Be careful to say that you are NOT stating this individual is the Zodiac, but merely asking questions and expressing an OPINION that this individual might be worth examining as a possible person of interest in the case.

Would it not be true too that, if a poi was deceased, the family of the poi could also sue for damages?

Soze

I don’t know,I don’t think so. It would have to be proven that their reputation or character was damaged,but kind of hard for a dead person to have their reputation harmed.

But just because your are dead doesn’t mean one cannot harm your reputation. I bet with a good attorney, you could sue the pants off someone.

Aside from libel and invasion of privacy laws, there are also internet and forum rules and regulations. Plus common sense and courtesy!

Generally speaking, for a living individual who is not a convicted murderer, yes always use initials or a fake name.

Do not reveal a city or employer or other information specific enough to give the identity away.

Be careful to say that you are NOT stating this individual is the Zodiac, but merely asking questions and expressing an OPINION that this individual might be worth examining as a possible person of interest in the case.

Good advice here, AK. I think it’s fair to state some personal information (aside from names) if and only if it relates to facts of the case. If your POI lives in Vallejo and once resided in Riverside, that’s circumstantially relevant to the case and not specifically identifying. It can be tricky sometimes to draw connections without revealing identity but not impossible.

You are fortunate in a way to have a public and infamous POI. There is not only lots of information publically available about Ted but nobody is likely to sue you over defaming the good name of Ted Kaczynski. Well, Ted might but he’s apparently preoccupied with other things at the moment…

I am afraid, as a qualified solicitor in England in my opinion the answer to the OP’s question is that referring to a person by initials may not provide a complete defence to defamatory libel.

If a person could be identified from the initials and the context of the post or that identity could reasonably be inferred, and the individual concerned felt the comment was untrue and damaging then the position could be they have a case under English law (note – we have a new defamation act this year) for defamation.

It would however be a complete defence to show the comment was true. It would also be a defence to show that the comment was a "fair comment". It would also be a defence to demonstrate that a reasonable person would not consider the comment damaging to an individuals reputation.

I would personally err on the side of caution and word comments carefully remembering this is a public forum and the comment will be published on the Internet. Phrasing something as a question is debatable and would depend on the above factors, does the question damage reputation and/or is hurtful, could the question be taken as a comment? I would personally would adhere to the maxim, if in doubt leave it out and try and phrase the comment in a fair, non defamatory manner being mindful that much can depend on the context of the comment. You could disclaim to an extent but careful and considered comments upholding good netiquette are much safer.

Please note I am not an expert on media law and the above is not intended to constitute legal advice, neither does the above opinion necessarily reflect the opinion of the owner of this site nor the does it necessarily reflect the position of the legal profession nor any individual or organisation and is the sole opinion of the author. Any reliance on the above is entirely at your own risk. By reading this post you are deemed to agree to these terms. So there.

Good point Igog. The international law question is a bit sticky.

As far as I know this site is hosted in the USA so how would that effect people who posted on it from other countries?

That is a bit of an essay question but anyone can sue in England and I don’t think it would matter that the website was hosted on an American server.

For a libel lawsuit, besides needing to prove that 1) what the person wrote was untrue and 2) that you have been harmed in some way, is it also necessary to prove 3) that the writer intended to harm you? That’s what I thought, could be wrong.

You don’t need to prove malicious intent in the UK to claim for defamation and it is not a constituant element of the tort to my knowledge. Recklessness and negligence can be sufficient. That there was no intent to harm and the statement was an opinion can be a partial defence though.