-7Norwich Pharmacal orders which led to disclosure by the respondents of certain details of the originators of the offending statements including their registered email addresses. It was through those e-mail addresses that the respondents (with the aid of Court orders) were able to trace and identify the persons concerned. The Court was told by Mr Michael Thomas SC9 that the appellants have reached financial settlements with the originators whom it chose to pursue. 15. There was very considerable traffic on the website. Members of the forum would develop what are known as discussion “threads” involving postings expressing a user’s views on a particular topic, leading to a sequence of postings by other users with their views and comments on that topic. The evidence was that there could be 30,000 users online at any given time and that during peak hours, over 5,000 postings could be made each hour. There was thus no attempt to edit or filter postings before they appeared on the forum. However, two administrators were employed to monitor forum discussion for six to eight hours per day, their job being to remove objectionable content by deleting objectionable postings or discussion threads and to field complaints. Forum postings could not be downloaded and a deleted posting no longer exists in “cyberspace” and can no longer be accessed by anyone. Where infraction of the rules by a user was frequent, the administrators could suspend or terminate that user’s account and so his ability to post messages on the forum. C. 16. Libel and publication The tort of libel has as its aim the protection of a person’s reputation. A person’s reputation consists of what others think of him or her. That reputation is damaged when a defendant publishes or communicates to a third person a defamatory statement (that is, a statement tending to lower someone in 9 Appearing with Mr Lawrence K F Ng for the appellants.