
Human Rights Court Says Sites Liable for User Comments - protomyth
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150616/11252831361/huge-loss-free-speech-europe-human-rights-court-says-sites-liable-user-comments.shtml
======
RexRollman
I am a bit surprised that the Human Rights Court is so unenlightened. Between
this and the right to supress history, I worry where Europe is headed.

------
Nadya
And the U.K quickly descending into a totalitarian state continues.

~~~
DanBC
You know this is Estonia, right? A completely different fucking country?

~~~
Nadya
Settled by the European Court of Human Rights which sets precedent for all 47
signatories. Case gets denied by your state? Take it up with the ECHR. Since
they now have precedent regarding user comments - if a comment hurts your poor
little feelings, file a case with the ECHR.

This is like the Supreme Court ruling over a case set in California. It would
effect New York all the same, who cares if the case is based in California?

~~~
dragonwriter
This isn't creating a new cause of action for the offended, its declining to
interfere with liability under domestic law. This decision _allows_ liability
under domestic law (in the particular case, the challenged law was Estonian),
it does not create new liability where it does not exist under the law of the
state. Its basically like a decision of the Supreme Court finding that the
Constitution does not prohibit a state-law cause of action, rather than one
creating a new federal basis for liability. So, no, if you don't like a
comment, you can't take it to the ECHR. 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.

~~~
Nadya
_> 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.

