
European court decision: Websites are liable for users’ comments - suprgeek
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-court-decision-websites-are-liable-for-users-comments/
======
Xylakant
The headline is pretty misleading. The ECHR decided that it's not a breach of
european rights if a member countries law stipulates a liability for a
commercial provider. For example german law still requires that the provider
is notified before any liability takes effect. So the provider is liable to
remove offending content in a reasonable time after being notified, and this
decision doesn't change anything.

For german readers a well written summary [http://www.internet-
law.de/2015/06/forenbetreiber-haftet-fue...](http://www.internet-
law.de/2015/06/forenbetreiber-haftet-fuer-beleidigungen-der-nutzer-oder-doch-
nicht.html)

~~~
fweespeech
Yeah _but_ requiring a notice-and-takedown approach is quite reasonable. This
is the equivalent of all EU countries being legally allowed to ban free speech
on the Internet at a national level, if desired.

Yeah, its not "changing anything" but its tantamount to admitting that Estonia
is not a functioning democracy that respects fundamental human rights like
free speech....and that it is OKAY for the EU.

~~~
arrrg
The zeal with which some people view free speech is really quite adorable. I
don’t think it’s really so important. (It is important, sure, just not that
important. And limiting free speech is certain a-ok with me, within limits.)

~~~
fweespeech
Very well. Stop posting completely on HN because HN is now liable even if it
takes down hate speech within 24 hours of notification if it was run by an
Estonian and/or had connections to Estonia [say via e-Residency].

Its cute how people are ready to sell other groups of people down the river
without accepting the broader implications.

------
Nadya
I commented on this topic in another HN thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9727988](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9727988)

The important part, in my eyes, is in my last response to dragonwriter, which
I will repeat here.

 _> You just no longer have to worry about the website who you've sued
successfully in your local courts taking its offense at having being found
liable to the ECHR. So it has precisely zero effect on Britain beyond not
blocking certain types of liability that the British government might create
through its own laws._

As explained near the end of the article:

 _> As a consequence, active intermediaries and blog operators will have
considerable incentives to discontinue offering a comments feature, and the
fear of liability may lead to additional self-censorship by operators. This is
an invitation to self-censorship at its worst._

The statues under the United Kingdom Hate Speech laws means people can sue in
courts for comments containing hate speech and the ECHR now has a precedent to
rule in their favor and hold the intermediate party liable for said comments.
The result? Nobody wants to be held liable, so they shut down their comment
sections.

That's bad for free speech and is a side-entry form of censorship. Not direct
from the state, but implied and enforced by the state on private entities.

//end self quote

Although the courts probably wouldn't hear it - wouldn't ISIS or criticisms of
extremist readings/interpretations of the Qur'an be protected from hate speech
under the U.K's current statutes? Just want to make sure I'm understanding the
U.K's hate speech laws properly.

~~~
tfgg
I went to an interesting seminar on UK defamation law as it relates to the UK,
given by an experienced barrister. He didn't mention much about hate speech,
so I don't know if it's relevant. Notes and slides from the seminar are here:
[http://francisdavey.github.io/defamation/](http://francisdavey.github.io/defamation/)
and I highly recommend reading them, very interesting! It basically looks like
a UK operator now has a fair amount of protection if they take reasonable
actions.

~~~
Nadya
Under slide 21 - it seems (unless I am misreading) "honest opinion" is
defensible.

So if I call someone a shithead and hold that as my true opinion, it is
defensible. But if I call someone a shithead as a matter-of-fact, it isn't.
(replace shithead with most any slander: racist, pedophile, sexist)

Slide 32 made me laugh.

Slide 35 seems unreasonable. What if I went on vacation for a week? I only
have 48 hours to operate in? So to legally cover my ass, I would have to hire
someone to moderate the comment section of my blog while I went on a
honeymoon? While this may be an excuse accepted by the court outside the
letter-of-the-law (humans are a bit more... human in application of the law),
the letter-of-the-law would hold me liable.

There seems to be a loophole that isn't given thought. What if the original
comment presupposes the removal and affirms that - "in such a case that a
claim is made to remove this comment, my response is that this comment must be
retained." and gives their name and address?

Furthermore - wouldn't that put the commentator in potential harm/danger of
their life (in an extreme scenario)? That hardly seems reasonable and only
encourages them to not respond and have the comment removed. Which is harmful
for free speech.

Thanks for the slides. Informative although still a bit scary.

~~~
tfgg
The notes are a bit more detailed (p13 for Section 5). There seem to be lots
of different overlapping defences of which you can choose to use one or more,
that one is more protocol based and involved than the others (though some
companies will like having a protocol to follow). It seems that the
commentator doesn't have to consent to their contact information being
released in order to keep their comment up.

I remember the guy saying that the best defence seems to be the EU
"Information Society Service", and that's what will apply to most
startups/businesses.

IANAL, but to be devil's advocate, it is slightly irresponsible to allow
potentially malicious posters to post things on your website with no
supervision, even if you are on holiday.

~~~
Nadya
_> It seems that the commentator doesn't have to consent to their contact
information being released in order to keep their comment up._

So would my presumption clause work for keeping a comment up? I couldn't find
anything on that approach.

 _> IANAL, but to be devil's advocate, it is slightly irresponsible to allow
potentially malicious posters to post things on your website with no
supervision, even if you are on holiday._

They do seem to take "ability to moderate" into consideration from a few case
examples.

I honestly don't have a legal defense for this - I just see it as
unreasonable. Which wouldn't hold up very well in court. :)

------
themeekforgotpw
This is tangentially related to the same general topic, so I hope it is
welcomed here.

Methods for state censorship are making their way onto content providers
online. For example, in the United States we have a system across Twitter,
Reddit, Facebook and other sites whereby links will be blocked from
publication.

A recent academic publication "Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion
Communities"
([http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00680v1.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00680v1.pdf))
has been reported as a boon for 'anti-troll' applications of the internet -
though it finds its funding from counter-propaganda funding from the US and
NATO.

The West more generally will cry out when nations block Western content,
ideas, or US funded Civil Society groups - but are fine themselves censoring
anti-Western ideas and narratives even when they are not directly part of a
mis- or dis-information campaign.

Those who have lived both inside and outside the United States are, for the
most part, well aware that Americans live inside of an information bubble of
American narrative - and that Americans (like every other citizen on Earth) is
subject to censorship and to propaganda.

The Internet, by a series of laws and technical solutions, is today in the
process of being enveloped into this system.

I lived through the era where the Internet was free, and miss it. I fear
tomorrow's Internet, and the Internet of the day after; I fear that it will
continue - and all signs currently point this direction - down a narrowing
corridor until it, too, becomes unashamedly part of the same bubble.

------
ddebernardy
No surprises here. In France, this has been the case for a long time btw: when
you allow comments on your publication (print or web) you basically owe them
and are responsible and liable for them. Prior jurisprudence includes Yahoo
selling Nazi artifacts and getting fined for it. [1]

If some nut job writes crap on your site you're basically in charge of
monitoring and removing it. And in most of Europe, some things are simply off
boundaries and not subjected to free speech - in contrast with the US. In
particular hate speech.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo)!

------
mark_l_watson
Except for material that literally breaks the law, I tend to favor unfiltered
free speech. One exception: sometimes people leave comments on my blog that
are not about my post, but rather, links to their products, services, etc. I
don't accept those. I don't feel like I need to support other people's free
speech in these cases, on my blog.

I may be old fashioned (I have been using the Internet since about 1982), but
I really think everyone should have their own web site and/or blog to post
their own stuff on.

------
istvan__
RIP free speech. This is basically saying that highways are responsible for
the damage bad drivers cause.

~~~
jimmaswell
It's an area where European laws fall extremely short

~~~
Karunamon
Maybe this is just my ignorant American self talking, but the speech laws in
Europe seem just plain backwards.. decisions like this, the libel laws...

~~~
cm3
In the US you can stand on the street and deny the holocaust or preach hate
against some part of the population and it's covered by free speech, isn't it?
I think everybody should be allowed to say whatever they like even if it's
hate speech but then again laws are in place to exclude hate speech. I hope
that if any lunatic is allowed to say what they like we have to face them and
evolve as societies but I may be too naive in expecting people to adapt to
that. The rationale for disallowing certain speech is supposedly to limit
offending people or luring the gullible into their hate mindset. However even
with limited free speech hate mongerers on all continents manage to impress
the young and ship them to ISIS-land.

Would it be best if there's total free speech and we'd have to adapt and learn
to ignore "trolls" like on the internet?

Or are the lawmakers right in limiting free speech?

At least in the case of libel I'm of the opinion that you should just shrug
off what someone says about you. Haters will be everywhere. I mean we all know
where contesting someone's public opinion of him got Mr Wylde in ye olde
England. Had he listened to his friends and ignored the accusations he might
have lived longer.

Libel is often misused like the patent system and not used for its original
intention. That might show we better get rid of libel as well while at it.

Many people say bad things about me or you and I want more to do it so that I
can grow a thicker skin.

Opinions welcome as I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

~~~
pjc50
European views on "hate speech" and in particular inciting racial hatred
against minority groups are very much informed by the Holocaust having
happened.

One person saying hateful things can be ignored. A whole mob cannot.

~~~
Tomte
It's always funny to see Americans complain about the "lack of free speech" in
Germany (Nazism, Scientology), when all those laws and the relevant legal
structure around it was not only accepted by the US after WW2, but basically
forced upon Germany by the US.

~~~
gdwatson
Nobody on HN expects Americans here to agree with current U.S. foreign policy.
Why expect us to agree with past policy?

~~~
Tomte
Noone needs to agree with past policy.

But then lament your past policy. Don't attack the ones whose constitution you
created.

------
MarvinYork
Can OP sue 4chan?

