Defamation Bill — Clause 5 — Operators of Websites — Defence to Defamation Action if They Did Not Post Statement — 12 Sep 2012 at 17:00
Oliver Letwin MP, West Dorset did not vote.
The majority of MPs voted to provide website operators with a defence to defamation action if they did not post the statement on the website; subject to circumstances which defeat the defence.
- Amendment: 7, page 3, line 22, leave out clause 5.
Clause 5 of the Bill titled Operators of websites and provides a defence to website operators facing a defamation action if they did not post the statement on the website however this defence cannot be used if:
- it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
- the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
- the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.
Regulations were subsequently made.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Defamation Bill (now an Act)
-  Explanatory notes to the Defamation Bill (now an Act)
-  Clause 5 of the Defamation Bill as at the time of the vote
-  The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||237 (+1 tell)||0||0||78.0%|
|Lab||0||196 (+2 tell)||0||77.0%|
|LDem||39 (+1 tell)||0||0||70.2%|