There are a number of instances of people posting on facebook and twitter etc. and being jailed for the offensive or threatening nature of the posts - but the website operators weren't .
This is long - perhaps you may only read if you have a while ......Found online :
Under UK law the position is rather complex but the starting point is that, not only authors of defamatory content, but also "secondary publishers" who store or disseminate information, such as website hosts or operators of website forums or other websites with user generated content ("UGC"), can all be held liable for website / online defamation.
However, if what you do amounts purely to hosting online content or operating a website with content posted by others, the law (in particular, the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and the Defamation Act 1996) may let you off the hook provided that you had no reason to know of the defamatory content and that, when you found about it, you quickly removed it.
Understandably, those operating online forums or other sites with UGC often prefer to vet and edit material before allowing it to be posted. But, by moderating content in this way, under UK law website or online operators will be more likely to be held legally responsible for internet defamation occurring on the website or other online location.
The safest course of action for website operators or hosts facing allegations of internet libel is therefore to take down all of the content immediately. If you delay or attempt to edit the material, then your risk of legal liability for online defamation increases substantially.
However, the Defamation Act 2013 and associated regulations (full title: "The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013") offer an alternative route to website operators, though not a straightforward one.
Web operators have a defence to website defamation if they can show that they didn't post the defamatory statement on the site - provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can't identify the person who posted the statement. The regulations set up a complex series of communications / steps (with relatively short timescales attached to each) whereby the site operator contacts the poster to get either consent to removal of material or else the poster's identification details to enable the complainant to sue the poster.
If they receive a complaint under the Defamation Act 2013, website operators have a difficult decision to make. Do they chase the carrot of a complete defamation defence by leaving the disputed material in place and devoting time, cost and effort in trying to comply with the tricky regulatory regime? If they get it wrong, web operators not only lose the Defamation Act 2013 defence but also risk their other possible defamation defences which depend on the swift removal of content. Or do they simply remove the offending content to achieve a quick end to the matter? Web operators will need to develop a strategy, weighing up the relevant factors including the importance which they place on preserving UGC on their sites and the cost / feasibility of setting up a system to comply with the Defamation Act 2013 regime.