Online publishers and hosts launch libel reform campaign

Protect our bloggers... and ISPs


Internet publishers and ISPs have joined forces to ask the Government to reform libel laws to protect the free speech rights of bloggers and commenters and to strip host companies of liability for libellous statements.

The companies have asked the Government to change the law so that hosts and publishers do not have to take down any material that might be libellous until a court tells them to. They also want a public interest defence to libel.

Facebook, Yahoo!, AOL, the Internet Service Providers' Association and others have written an open letter to David Cameron demanding changes to the law.

The English law of defamation is having a disproportionate, chilling effect on online writers, e-communities and web hosts, they argue.

"The libel laws have not been updated to address the rise of online publication. The current multiple publication rule, dating back to 1849, defines every download as a publication and a potential new cause of action," said the letter.

"Internet service providers can be held liable for comments they host and therefore are inclined to take down material or websites even before the writer or publisher has been made aware of a complaint," it said. "Such intermediaries usually have no access to the background or relevant facts and should not be expected to play judge and jury in determining whether a writer’s material is defamatory or not. This is a decision that can and should only be made by the direct parties involved."

Laws based on the E-Commerce Directive say that intermediaries are not responsible for unlawful material they allow others to publish until they gain actual or constructive knowledge that it breaks the law. At that point they become resonsible for it unless they take it down quickly.

Both the ruling Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties pledged to reform the libel laws in their manifestos before this year's general election. The Government said in July that it would publish a new Defamation Bill early in 2011.

It said its Bill would seek to give writers and commentators more rights at the expense of people suing for libel.

"The Government recognises the impact that the current law may be having on freedom of expression, particularly in relation to academic and scientific debate, the work of non-governmental organisations and investigative journalism and will be looking at options for addressing concerns around 'libel tourism'," said a Ministry of Justice statement at the time.

The letter asks that the Government give more protection to the companies responsible for internet publishing.

"ISPs and forum hosts – ‘intermediaries’ – should not be forced to take down material without a determination by a court or competent authority that the content is defamatory," it said. "The claimant should in the first instance approach the author rather than an uninvolved intermediary."

The letter also demanded that an online comment be taken to have been published only when it was first online so that the one year limitation on acting on it can take effect. Courts have said that an online comment is 'published' each time it is accessed, meaning that there is no effective limitation on libel actions based on it.

The letter also asked that people acting in the public interest be able to use that as a defence, and that the defence be related to the context of publication.

"There should be a public interest defence in cases where the material is on a matter of public interest and the author has acted in accordance with expectations of the medium or forum," it said.

"ISPs are currently in a position where they may have to decide what bears defamatory meaning, putting the intermediary in a position of judge and jury over content," said ISPA secretary general Nicholas Lansman. "We therefore support the call for an innocent dissemination defence, that ISPs should only be forced to remove defamatory material that has been decreed defamatory by a court or competent authority, and to bring libel law into the twenty-first century through the creation of a single publication rule."

“Many web publishers lack the expertise and financial resources to defend against libel actions and are particularly vulnerable to threats," said Peter Noorlander of the Media Legal Defence Initiative.

Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.


Other stories you might like

  • These Rapoo webcams won't blow your mind, but they also won't break the bank

    And they're almost certainly better than a laptop jowel-cam

    Review It has been a long 20 months since Lockdown 1.0, and despite the best efforts of Google and Zoom et al to filter out the worst effects of built-in laptop webcams, a replacement might be in order for the long haul ahead.

    With this in mind, El Reg's intrepid reviews desk looked at a pair of inexpensive Rapoo webcams in search for an alternative to the horror of our Dell XPS nose-cam.

    Rapoo sent us its higher-end XW2K, a 2K 30fps device and, at the other end of the scale, the 720p XW170. Neither will break the bank, coming in at around £40 and £25 respectively from online retailers, but do include some handy features, such as autofocus and a noise cancelling microphone.

    Continue reading
  • It's one thing to have the world in your hands – what are you going to do with it?

    Google won the patent battle against ART+COM, but we were left with little more than a toy

    Column I used to think technology could change the world. Google's vision is different: it just wants you to sort of play with the world. That's fun, but it's not as powerful as it could be.

    Despite the fact that it often gives me a stomach-churning sense of motion sickness, I've been spending quite a bit of time lately fully immersed in Google Earth VR. Pop down inside a major city centre – Sydney, San Francisco or London – and the intense data-gathering work performed by Google's global fleet of scanning vehicles shows up in eye-popping detail.

    Buildings are rendered photorealistically, using the mathematics of photogrammetry to extrude three-dimensional solids from multiple two-dimensional images. Trees resolve across successive passes from childlike lollipops into complex textured forms. Yet what should feel absolutely real seems exactly the opposite – leaving me cold, as though I've stumbled onto a global-scale miniature train set, built by someone with too much time on their hands. What good is it, really?

    Continue reading
  • Why Cloud First should not have to mean Cloud Everywhere

    HPE urges 'consciously hybrid' strategy for UK public sector

    Sponsored In 2013, the UK government heralded Cloud First, a ground-breaking strategy to drive cloud adoption across the public sector. Eight years on, and much of UK public sector IT still runs on-premises - and all too often - on obsolete technologies.

    Today the government‘s message boils down to “cloud first, if you can” - perhaps in recognition that modernising complex legacy systems is hard. But in the private sector today, enterprises are typically mixing and matching cloud and on-premises infrastructure, according to the best business fit for their needs.

    The UK government should also adopt a “consciously hybrid” approach, according to HPE, The global technology company is calling for the entire IT industry to step up so that the public sector can modernise where needed and keep up with innovation: “We’re calling for a collective IT industry response to the problem,” says Russell MacDonald, HPE strategic advisor to the public sector.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021