Google not liable for comments made on it's webpages

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
03/03/2012 13:04

Interesting and potentially far reaching UK High Court decision.



'Currently sites such as Google are not liable for comments posted by users until they are notified by a complainant, at which point they become regarded as the publisher.



However, the judge’s comments appear to signal that should not be the case.



Mr Justice Eady said: "It seems to me to a significant factor in the evidence before me that Google Inc is not required to take any positive step, technically, in the process of continuing the accessibility of the offending material, whether it has been notified of a complainants' objection or not.



"In those circumstances, I would be prepared to hold that it should not be regarded as a publisher, or even as one who authorised publication, under the established principles of common law".



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9118986/Google-not-responsible-for-internet-graffiti-rules-judge.html

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
03/03/2012 13:18

Thanks for the link Hector. Very interesting and about time the precdent set back in the 90's with Godfrey v Demon Internet was challenged and reversed. This would seem to be that case.

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
03/03/2012 13:22

Justice Eady took the view that comments even if libellous posted on a website are no different to someone painting graffiti on a wall.



'Catrin Evans, representing Google, argued "it has no control over any of this content" and, far from being a publisher, is merely "a neutral service provider".



The judge said: "Google Inc makes the point that it has no way of knowing whether the comments complained of were true or not, or subject to some other defence in law.



"It argues that it cannot reasonably be expected to investigate and determine the truth or falsity fo allegations made by bloggers".



He added: "One needs to be wary of analogies when considering modern technology, but it may perhaps be said that the position is, according to Google Inc, rather as though it owned a wall on which various people had chosen to inscribe graffiti.



"It does not regard itself as being more responsible for the content of these graffiti than would the owner of such a wall".

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
03/03/2012 15:44

If the TRNC courts followed this judgement, it would mean that Cyprus 44 would not be liable for the comments made by it's forum members.

ianwfs


Joined: 08/01/2008
Posts: 563

Message Posted:
03/03/2012 17:03

I would disagree. Google (and "the side of a wall" which is mentioned above) are not moderated. C44 is, and, I would say, the moderators have a duty much as a newspaper editor has, and are quite possibly subject to the same legal action as a newspaper editor who allows a libel to be published.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
03/03/2012 19:16

C44 is moderated only for first timers and then comments are published automatically, unseen by moderators. But International law does not apply here anyway and you are not even allowed to write that Akfinans Bank "has shown its true colour; attempting to wash its hands of any responsibility towards those it intends to make homeless and using classic bully boy tactics to silence its critics" as Tom Roche did in Cyprus Today.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
03/03/2012 19:22

I tend to agree with ianwfs on this but what it does almost certainly mean is the company that provide the hosting services which this site uses would no longer be considered a 'publisher' once notified of potentialy defamtory content. This is a mjor improvement over how things stood before this new ruling. Under the previous godfrey vs demon internet precedent, many sites were forced to remove content or be shut down at the slightest threat of legal action by their hosting companies. It became the standard way of 'silencing' fair critisism before. Do not threaten legal action against the person posting the material, or the person who owns and controls the site it is posted on, for either of these would be likely to resist unfounded claims of defamation. Instead threaten the hosters of the site, who have no knoweldge of the content at all, because under the demon interent precedent they were publishers and liable. Noe it would seem they are not and that is right imo.