[x-pubpol] UK: Ruling on Google’s liability is bad news for free speech online

[Joly MacFie]

http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3611/en/united-kingdom:-ruling-on-google%E2%80%99s-liability-is-bad-news-for-free-speech-online

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled that Google
could be liable as publisher for comments posted on its Blogger
platform if it fails to act promptly in response to notice of a
complaint.

ARTICLE 19 is alarmed by the judgment, which is a serious step back
for free speech online.

“This a hallow victory for Google. They may have won on the day, but
the court’s judgment effectively endorses a problematic ‘notice and
takedown’ system, which encourages intermediaries like Google to
remove potentially defamatory material immediately upon notification
despite the fact that the material complained about may not be
unlawful. This creates a worrying chilling effect on freedom of
expression, as intermediaries might censor perfectly legitimate
speech” said Agnes Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.

“This ruling seems particularly unfortunate at a time where some
provisions in the Defamation Bill are trying to redress the inherent
unfairness of ‘notice-and-takedown’ rules and the EU is reviewing
possible alternatives to this system” Callamard added.

The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier ruling of the High Court
from March 2012, which found that Google should not be considered as a
publisher because of its passive role as a platform provider.

The Court of Appeal held a different view and held that if Google
allowed defamatory comments to remain on a blog after it had been
notified of those comments, it might become responsible for their
publication.

Key to the court’s reasoning was the fact that Google makes the
Blogger platform available on terms of its own choice and that it can
remove or block access to any notice that does not comply with those
terms.

Although the court ultimately decided to dismiss the overall appeal as
the defamation comments were considered too trivial, ARTICLE 19 finds
the decision a serious setback for free speech online.

ARTICLE 19 is also disappointed that the Court did not hear or refer
to freedom of expression during this case, a right which is given
protection through the Human Rights Act.

Facts of the case

Mr Tamiz is a former Conservative party local council candidate and law student.

In early July 2011, Tamiz complained to Google about eight comments
posted on the London Muslim blog, which he said were defamatory of
him. The comments had been posted between 28 and 30 April 2011 and
included false claims that Mr Tamiz was a drug dealer and a thief.

On 11 August, after further email exchanges, Google passed on the
complaint to the blogger. On 14 August 2011, some five weeks after the
initial complaint to Google, all the comments complained of had been
removed by the blogger.


--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-