Cap. 579 ст. 12Editors of websites.

(1) This article applies where an action for defamation is brought against the editor of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.

(2) It is a defence in mitigation of damages for the editor to show that it was not the operator or person who posted the statement on the website.

(3) The defence is defeated if the plaintiff shows that -

(a) it was not possible for the plaintiff to identify the person who posted the statement, and

(b) the plaintiff gave the editor a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and

(c) the editor failed to respond to the notice of complaint or did not act in accordance with any provision contained in regulations about such notices.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of sub-article (3), it is possible for a claimant to "identify" a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person.

(5) The Minister may by regulations which shall be made after a consultation process, and which shall take into account the need to guarantee a fair balance between the protection reputation of persons and freedom of expression exercised as is necessary in a democratic society, and which shall be approved by resolution of the House of Representatives before they come into force:

(a) make provision as to the action required to be taken by an editor of a website in response to a notice of complaint which may in particular include action relating to the identity or contact details of the person who posted the statement and action relating to its removal;

(b) make provision specifying a time limit for the taking of any such action;

(c) make any other provision for the purposes of this article.

(6) Subject to any provision made by virtue of sub-article (5), a notice of complaint is a notice which -

(a) specifies the complainant’s name,

(b) sets out the statement concerned and explains why it is defamatory of the complainant,

(c) specifies where on the website the statement was posted, and

(d) contains such other information as may be specified in regulations.

(7) The defence under this article is defeated if the plaintiff shows that the editor of the website has acted with malice in relation to the posting of the statement concerned.

(8) The defence under this article is not defeated by reason only of the fact that the editor of the website moderates the statements posted on it by others.