While you can rest easy that no blanket order will be made against Tattle forcing them to disclose the email addresses of all posters to the website, a court can grant orders against Tattle, on a case-by-case basis, compelling them to disclose email addresses connected to certain usernames.
A court can only do this if an individual who has been defamed or otherwise legally wronged on Tattle makes an application to court asking that such an order be made. That application to court can be expensive 鈥 legal costs typically range between 鈧10,000 and 鈧20,000, depending on whether the application is contested.
This cost would be too significant for a lot of people but as we have seen in the Sands case, there are individuals with the resources to fund such applications.
Even if an order is made against Tattle, compelling them to release the email addresses connected with specific usernames, there is the added layer that the person/entities behind Tattle are based outside of Ireland and while they are bound by the order made and legally are obliged to comply with it, it would be a long and expensive road to take the matter further if they don鈥檛 comply.
If someone鈥檚 email address is released on foot of a court order, it may or may not reveal the person鈥檚 identity 鈥 it depends on whether it contains a real name or other identifiable information or whether it is publicly available and linked to an identifiable online profile. If the email is anonymous or generic, the person鈥檚 real identity may require forensic investigation 鈥 a costly and complex process but one which certain individuals with sufficient resources may undertake in order to protect their reputation.
Bringing a defamation claim itself is also a costly process. In the High Court costs typically range between 鈧30,000 and 鈧80,000, depending on complexity and whether it鈥檚 contested. Proceedings in the Circuit Court will cost less but it still remains prohibitively expensive for most people.
If a person wins a defamation case, the defamer will be responsible for paying not only any damages awarded to the defamed person but their legal costs as well. Damages in defamation cases vary widely, from a few thousand euros to hundreds of thousands, depending on the severity of the case, the prominence of the defamed person, and whether the defamer is deemed to have acted maliciously.
While a defamer may have no assets and may therefore be at little risk financially, the defamed individual may take sufficient comfort in the legal victory of having a 鈥淭attler鈥 named and shamed in the public domain regardless of whether they actually receive the compensation they are entitled to.
If you鈥檝e posted something on Tattle that could be considered defamatory or malicious, the safest course of action is to delete it. Deleting your post does not mean you鈥檙e immune to being sued but it would certainly lessen the chances of that happening.
You may be saying 鈥渨ell anything I鈥檝e posted is true and true statements are not defamatory鈥. Correct. However, knowing something to be true and proving the truth of a statement in court are two entirely different things and unless you have people (witnesses) to back you up, you shouldn鈥檛 take much comfort from the fact you think it鈥檚 true, if on the face of it, it鈥檚 defamatory.
If your posts are over two years old, that would also diminish the likelihood of being successfully sued or sued at all as the defamed individual would be outside of the limitation period for a defamation action (which is one year but can be extended to two years in certain circumstances). However, you can’t assume that a court will not order the release of your email address even in this situation.
While most Tattle posters will never be identified, the potential for identification does exist.
Hopefully this Tattle tale will be a wake-up call to us all on the importance of being mindful of our online behaviour. While the law strives to balance free speech with accountability, it鈥檚 clear that those who post harmful content could be unmasked. Recent awards/settlements relating to online posts by individuals have ranged from 鈧40,000-鈧140,000 (sometimes excluding legal costs).
Think carefully before posting and remember what you say online can have real-world consequences.
Stephanie Coughlan is a senior associate and Darryl Broderick is a partner at RDJ