

News Site Held Responsible for Users’ Defamatory Comments - queeerkopf
http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2013/10/11/news-site-held-responsible-for-users-defamatory-comments/

======
bradmoo
I do recall an article being submitted to HN saying that the UK also has a law
making site owners liable for user-generated comments unless they pro-actively
moderate them. I don't understand there logic behind it, it's not possible to
moderate any website with a decent amount of traffic.

I'm suprised this is happening in Estonia, I always thought of Estonia as
excelling in the tech world compared with most EU countries.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I do recall an article being submitted to HN saying that the UK also has a
> law making site owners liable for user-generated comments unless they pro-
> actively moderate them. I don't understand there logic behind it, it's not
> possible to moderate any website with a decent amount of traffic.

The idea that publishers have a positive duty to assure that what they publish
is not harmful (libelous, or otherwise) with limited defenses is pretty common
globally; the US idea that the freedom of speech is so strong publishers have
a fairly minimal duty in this regard so long as harms are not intentional (or
reckless in some cases) is, AFAIK, less common.

So the fact that it is burdensome on publishers and creates costs that would
make certain forms of interaction difficult isn't considered problematic from
that perspective -- what's problematic is the unpoliceable publications.

~~~
jfb
Exactly. It's a classic example of the clash of incommensurable goods.

------
queeerkopf
Tim Worstall at Forbes makes a very different assessment of the ruling [1]. He
concludes that news portals might now be liable under all the different laws
of their readers different jurisdictions.

I'm quite doubtful that the international laws would work that way. But maybe
someone with more of a background in law can shed some light on these
differing opinions? Might there actually be reason for concern for every web
page operator who allows comments?

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/11/every-
web...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/11/every-website-that-
accepts-comments-now-has-a-european-problem/)

~~~
Shivetya
well the part that worries me is the references to "hate speech". How much
restricted speech is there in the EU? The most obvious bugaboo I can think of
would be Nazis. Is that at the member level or EU wide?

The idea that popularity has been decided increase risk of going beyond the
boundaries of "acceptable" speech is door wide open to abuse. It basically
tells any site operator the more popular the more diligent you must be because
you should know better

~~~
PeterisP
Probably in every european country there is some extremist group with an
agenda "let's kill all [ethnic] or at least drive them out of our country",
and of course it shows up in internet comments, so some hate speech exists -
but the regulation of it varies from country to country.

~~~
nraynaud
It's even a continuous political issue, since there are always talks about the
next countries entering Schengen, UE or Eurozone and the associated inner-
migrations.

------
fnordfnordfnord
There is time to protest:

> _The judgment isn’t final. During the three-month period following its
> delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand
> Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
> considers whether the case deserves further examination. If it believes so,
> the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If not,
> the original judgment becomes final on that day._

I'm not sure what particulars of Estonian law compelled them to unanimously
decide this way. Maybe there is some strangeness there that means the ruling
won't apply broadly, but it sure sounds wacky and problematic.

~~~
icebraining
There's nothing in the Estonian law that compelled them, since as TFA says,
the court was not looking at Estonian law. All the ECHR did look at the
decision of Estonian courts and say, "this does not violate essential human
rights".

Personally, I don't see why we should blame them for stupid Estonian laws
and/or judges.

