European court: websites liable for users' comments

[Hydra009]

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-court-decision-websites-are-liable-for-users-comments/

In a surprise decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has ruled that the Estonian news site Delfi may be held responsible for anonymous and allegedly defamatory comments from its readers. As the digital rights organisation Access notes, this goes against the European Union’s e-commerce directive, which "guarantees liability protection for intermediaries that implement notice-and-takedown mechanisms on third-party comments." As such, Peter Micek, Senior Policy Counsel at Access, says the ECHR judgment has "dramatically shifted the internet away from the free expression and privacy protections that created the internet as we know it."

A post from the Media Legal Defence Initiative summarises the reasons why the court came to this unexpected decision. The ECHR cited "the 'extreme' nature of the comments which the court considered to amount to hate speech, the fact that they were published on a professionally-run and commercial news website," as well as the "insufficient measures taken by Delfi to weed out the comments in question and the low likelihood of a prosecution of the users who posted the comments," and the moderate sanction imposed on Delfi.

One of the worrying aspects of the ECHR decision is that it may encourage the idea that intermediaries are liable for "manifestly unlawful" content, without specifying what "manifestly unlawful" actually means. McIntyre points out that this is "something which may lead to a chilling effect where sites are over cautious in taking down material which might possibly be contentious."

As Access's Micek told Ars: "The website argued that its 'freedom to impart information created and published by third parties'â€"the commentersâ€"was at stake. Delfi invoked its Article 10 rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights and the [ECHR] accepted the case." Delfi's unexpected defeat there is likely to have important, if subtle consequences on not just the Web, but also freedom of speech and privacy, across the European Union.

In the wake of this decision, I just want to say a couple things:

Jews control the media, we're losing the Iraq war because of gays, psychiatry is bunk, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, Justin Bieber is the best singer to ever live, and Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong!

But seriously, this ruling is garbage.  It's like holding the host of a party responsible for what guests say.  First off, it's practically impossible to police every thing everyone says.  Some stuff is going to slip through.  Secondly, I'm not even sure they ought to police comments except for really, really extreme stuff.  People run their mouths on the internet.  That's part of the appeal.  The internet is a place for a relatively free exchange of ideas, and it's important to keep it that way.  If we had to shut down threads over here every time someone gets offended, we'd have nothing left.  Third, I'm looking at the Estonian news site's comments (scroll down to "Circumstances Of The Case" and click on section B) that apparently prompted a court case and their status as "hate speech" is dubious at best.  And the comments were removed the same day.  Problem solved.  So, I don't understand the big deal.  *shrugs*

[Sal1981]

This ruling is rather suspicious, and they even mention it as a "surprise ruling". Why the 180 degrees on this matter of free speech?

[TomFoolery]

I realize this is in Europe and I'm not well-versed in freedom of speech laws around the world. I would say that if it was here in the states, it would seem like a really creative way to limit freedom of speech through a third party so as to not make the government liable for controlling the populace.

[Ace101]

I've got mixed feelings on that - considering that the internet is pretty unregulated and that it can be used as an outlet for cyber-terrorism, stalking, or transmission of child pornography (or things in general which would be illegal and easier to track down if done in person rather than online), part of me things a few regulations should be enacted to help track down people who use the anonymous nature of the internet to facilitate terrorism or illegal activity.

But on the whole I'm against giving governments huge control over the internet.

[drunkenshoe]

In the wake of this decision, I just want to say a couple things:

Jews control the media, we're losing the Iraq war because of gays, psychiatry is bunk, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, Justin Bieber is the best singer to ever live, and Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong!

But seriously, this ruling is garbage.  It's like holding the host of a party responsible for what guests say.  First off, it's practically impossible to police every thing everyone says.  Some stuff is going to slip through.  Secondly, I'm not even sure they ought to police comments except for really, really extreme stuff.  People run their mouths on the internet.  That's part of the appeal.  The internet is a place for a relatively free exchange of ideas, and it's important to keep it that way.  If we had to shut down threads over here every time someone gets offended, we'd have nothing left. 

Agreed.

This ruling smells like "We cannot deal with this shit, so there". Seriously, I can't think of nothing  else. It's bullshit. 

PS "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" 

[Solitary]

With freedom comes responsibility, and freedom of speech comes responsibility, or there is chaos. When the people are not responsible who decides what is? Religious people would say atheists aren't , and atheist would say theist aren't , while white supremists would say different races aren't , Neo-Nazis would say the Jews aren't . It seems to me the more different groups there are the more it requires a tyrant to control the masses. What's the answer? I don't know.