Defamation Act 1996  
1(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that:
(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,
(b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and
(c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a 'defamatory statement.
section 1(3) states:
'A person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved:
(a) in printing, producing, distributing or selling printed material containing the statement;
(b) in processing, making copies of, distributing or selling any electronic medium in or on which the statement is recorded, or in operating or providing any equipment, system or service by means of which the statement is retrieved, copied, distributed or made available in electronic form;
(c) as the operator of or provider of acc英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】ess to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control'.

UK and Australian case law
Godfrey v. Demon Internet
Godfrey's action against Demon for defamation arose from a 1997 incident when an unknown person posted to the News group 'soc.culture.thai', a message purportedly originating with the plaintiff that was, according to the court, 'squalid, obscene and defamatory.' The question was whether the service provider could invoke the defence of innocent dissemination under s.1 in  relation to defamatory Internet news group posting when it had failed to remove material at defamed subscriber's request.

Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Ltd
Totalise commenced an action against two website portals to force them to disclose the identity of an individual, known as Z Dust. Z dust had posted defamatory messages about Totalise on both defendants' websites. The ISP since it had no editorial control, could be forced to disclose the identity of Z Dust, since if they refused to do so, the ISP could be held liable. It was held that the Data Protection Act 1998 did not prevent Z Dust’s name from being disclosed.

Harrods Ltd v Dow Jones & Co Inc
This case follows the Gutnick  case. In the Gutnick case, an Australian court held that an Australian national could bring defamation proceedings in Australia against the American Dow Jones Co., ev 本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】