Slashdot Mirror
European Court: Websites Are Responsible For Users' Comments
An anonymous reader writes: A new ruling from the European Court of Human Rights found it perfectly acceptable to hold websites responsible for comments left by users. Experts are worried the ruling will encourage websites to censor content posted by users out of concern that they're opening themselves up to legal liability. The judgment also seems to support the claim that "proactive monitoring" can be required of website owners. Peter Micek of digital rights group "Access" said, "This ruling is a serious blow to users' rights online. Dissenting voices will have fewer outlets in which to seek and impart opinions anonymously. Instead, users at risk will be dragged down by a precedent that will keep them from accessing the open ocean of ideas and information."
Suck it.
- An American Enjoying Their Freedom of Speech
Hopefully this ruling will be used to muzzle the euroskeptics and silence unwarranted criticism of the EU institutions. People don't know how good they have it. They don't need "freedom" they just can't handle, they need unity and purpose and only a united Europe can provide this. Europe is more important than the life of a single human or indeed of whole generations, but small folk do not have the scope to understand this. Silencing dissent is a starting point to instill a European mindset into the populace who has the duty and the privilege to toil for the great destiny of the greatest civilization that has ever been and will ever be.
and that is what the Republicans want.
You know what is funny, is every single time somebody puts in the word Republican, the word Democrat works just as well.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
ummm... when did the US become a European nation?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
... many European websites have started hosting in East Asia.... apparently the last bastion of free speech...
Seriously how sad would that be? Fucking France and Sweden. They really need to stop it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
When a court orders you to take down defamatory comments, then yes. It is a good thing to be held accountable to take it down.
I'm quite far on the individual liberties side of the spectrum, but if a comment is basically slander then I don't see why it shouldn't be able to be removed in a court of law.
The problem is if companies have inroads into fast tracking removals (such as 3 strikes rules on Youtube or DMCA requests). That's where the real nasty stuff starts happening.
I'm not sure you have your facts right. According to this report, they removed the comments as soon as they were notified by the victim of those comments. They didn't wait for a court order, but the victim wanted money given to him. The website refused, the court said to pay.
I don't know where you are, but in the US, the court case Zeran v. America Online provides that websites are not responsible for comments, even if they are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it. You can read the relevant law here.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"The case in question is regarding defamatory comments posted to a site that the victim went to court over. The courts ordered that the content be taken down. The lazy assed website owners took SIX WEEKS to remove the content."
No. RTFJ(udgment), under the chapter "FACTS".
The comments were removed the day the complaint came in, at which time the comments had been online for 6 weeks. This happened in 2006, by the way. The website had a mechanism for users to flag comments; apparently the complaining party had not used that and demanded monetary compensation at the first contact.
The judgment is surprisingly legible, though rather long. Much better than the average EULA. I didnn't read past the description of initial events. I'm sure that it also explains why this particular website owner was held responsible.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
8. ......Instead, the Court has adopted case-specific reasoning and at the same time has left the relevant principles to be developed more clearly in subsequent case-law.
15. Having regard to the clearly unlawful nature of the comments in question, as well as the fact that they remained on the news portal for six weeks before they were removed, we do not find it disproportionate for the Supreme Court to find Delfi liable as it had “failed to remove the comments
There is nothing sensational here. The court didn't say you were liable upfront, it didn't say that you couldn't be (and in some extreme cases that might make sense). But in this case the court ruled that holding someone liable for refusing to take down illegal speech hosted by them is not a free speech violation.
There is nothing new here. The ruling does not say you must moderate all comments.
The fact you're defending cesspits like 4chat is disgusting.
To see anybody defend censorship is much more so. It is truly offensive.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”