And, given the success of Gina Ford’s books, I find it difficult to believe that Mumsnet would have been unable to recover their costs if the case had gone to trial and they had won. Contrary to the claims in your earlier article, there are defences against libel if the defamation is justified or fair comment. So if Mumsnet had wanted to stand by the words they could have done. Yes, there would have been a risk, but what alternative are you or Mumsnet proposing? That somebody hosting a website should be free to publish any libel (or incitement to racial hatred or terrorism, or threats to kill?) without recourse for the victim? Mumsnet has a number of banner adverts on its site, and it’s not unreasonable to suppose that the adverts provide them with an income. Why shouldn’t the publisher of a website use this income to be as responsible as the publisher of a newspaper for the words they publish?

Wat – I’m still here, don’t worry. There was a scare when my website was taken off the server one evening but it transpired that it was only being updated. The Times’ lawyers have since written to Tony Jaffa, Gina Ford’s lawyer, supporting my article. Hooray! Now it’s a case of ‘wait and see’.

Nick – Justine Roberts has stated that she did not think the comments were defamatory but the cost of defending them in court would take up to two years with legal costs being assessed throughout. That cost was simply too much to bear. Therefore, like most writers and publishers, she settled due to financial necessity. Very few publishers are willing to take their chances against a libel law so heavily weighted against freedom of expression – with the end result that our public debate is much the poorer.
See articles:
http://www.out-law.com/page-8040
Justine Roberts’ blog: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/justine_roberts/2007/05/mums_the_word_from_now_on.html

I trust the fact that you haven’t posted for four days simply means you’ve taken the weekend off.

But they sure ain’t gonna bludgeon you.