Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISP Liability for Content - Demon.uk Case

Posted by Hemos on from the redirecting-the-efforts dept.

mdmbkr wrote to us with the BBC coverage of the current legal situation surrounding Demon.co.uk. Demon has dropped an intended appeal against a libel ruling, in which the British High Court had made ISP's responsible for "any defamatory material they know they are carrying, irrespective of where it originated." Demon has decided to re-driect its' efforts to shaping legislation currently being shaped in Parliament.

11 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Give me a break.... by InfiniterX · · Score: 3

    This is like suing the phone company because I said something about someone else I didn't like over a phone conversation.

    If this becomes any sort of legal precedent, then I will go right out and sue my own phone company for libel when all my friends talk about me behind my back.

    As if it's any more of a tribute to the world's messed up legal systems, I also love how Demon was caught in a lawsuit vs. AOL over the name "Number One ISP." Funny, the court ruled in favor of AOL even though AOL isn't even an ISP...

    1. Re:Give me a break.... by nhw · · Score: 4

      This is like suing the phone company because I said something about someone else I didn't like over a phone conversation.

      If this becomes any sort of legal precedent, then I will go right out and sue my own phone company for libel when all my friends talk about me behind my back.

      You can't sue for libel over a spoken conversation: you can only be libelled where the defamatory matter is published. At least in this jurisdiction (England/Wales).

      You could try suing for slander though. :-)

      The facts of the case are interesting. The plaintiff in the case informed Demon that they had libellous material (and it was not disputed at trial that the material was, in fact, libellous), but Demon didn't do anything about it.

      Now, technically, in English law, the act of serving an article from a news spool is publication. Since Demon knew that the article was potentially libellous, they couldn't avail themselves of the 'innocent publication' defence that is part of the 1996(? I should know this) Act.

      In terms of legal reasoning, the argument is pretty cut and dried.

      I would be very surprised that, had he not informed of the existence of the posting before suing, the plaintiff in this case would've succeeded before the court.

      Therefore, I don't think the ramifications of this case are as far reaching as some will no doubt prophesy. That's not to say that there aren't some important implications:

      1) The role of ISP as censor - from now on, if I see something on a newsgroup that I don't like, I can send out a note to all the ISPs in England asking them to remove it, or face a libel action. How many of them are going to take a stand and refuse to remove the article if they know that getting the call wrong means an expensive libel suit?

      2) If you think this is a bad thing, how _can_ you protect ISPs from this sort of thing, without 'breaking' a load of case law?

      Tough one.

      --
      -- O improbe amor, quid non mortalia pectora cogis!
    2. Re:Give me a break.... by rjk · · Score: 2

      I don't think it's as bad as you think. In the case at hand, the article in question was a forgery and clearly defamatory; as such I can't imagine why an ISP would mind removing it once notified, and I find Demon's behaviour puzzling.

      The bulk of articles on Usenet are, in contrast, clearly not defamatory of anyone; and if someone tries to make a nuisance of themselves by threatening to sue, the result of ignoring them will be either (a) nothing or (b) a libel case which the ISP wins, plus a bankrupt nuisance.

      (Of course not all operators of news servers are in a position to defend themselves against a bogus libel action; but see my remarks below.)

      The important case of course is where it is not clear whether an article which is the subject of a complaint is defamatory. My suspicion is that these will be few in number - meaning that it's not going to be a large burden to call in a lawyer to check them over, and not too disastrous if occasionally an ISP errs on the side of caution.

      If this suspicion turns out to be wrong then clearly some alternative approach is needed. But the same laws have applied to newspapers and their distributors without destroying the industry; I don't see that there's any reason to believe they'll destroy the net in the UK either.

      That said - the high cost even of defending against legal action does mean that it can be too easy for the rich to abuse UK libel law to silence poorer critics, and I think this should be reformed. This is hardly a problem unique to Usenet however - so far it has been much more relevant to print media .

  2. This is correct - for now by JimDabell · · Score: 2

    IANAL, but I think that, as nhw said, the law as it stands considers news postings as being published by the ISP. Until the law is changed so that ISPs are classed as telecommunication suppliers (or whatever the correct term is) issues such as this will continue to crop up.

    As far as I know, BT and other telcos are not at risk from being sued because they are classed as service providers, and are just the access point for people. ISPs do this now, and I assume Demon are going to press for ISPs to be put in the same league.

    However, I am not sure what the legal situation is if, e.g. somebody keeps getting harassing phone calls and BT does nothing about it. I would think that BT would be legally required to put a stop to it somehow. If ISPs were put in the same boat, and somebody kept posting defamatory articles, then I would imagine Demon would have to cancel the account. Which would be the correct thing to do.

    I think that Demon are doing the right thing by dismissing this and pressing for ISPs to have more rights.

  3. Umm one more thought by chabotc · · Score: 2

    Since slashdot is hosting our comments here, does the 'we do not hold ourselves responcible...' still hold true? in a way slashdot is the 'isp' (read carier) for all these comments, etc ... more so for dejanews maybe?

    man this situation is gonna get real messy real fast if thats the way things are going

    -- Chris Chabot
    "I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"

  4. I, too, was sued by Godfrey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    I was also sued by Godfrey a while back. The character is nothing but a flame baiter. Just like the kid back in school who would mouth off to others, and then cry to the teacher when someone gave him back a dose of his own BS.

    Demon, most likely, did not bother appealing because the British court allowed into evidence samples of some of his own postings to usenet, which clearly show what an ass he can be. He posts to uk.legal from time to time these days, offering articulate advice and commentary; but Demon was smart enough to dig beneath the surface and exposed him for what he really is, something which no one else had either the time or resources to do, myself included. Their damages, if any, in this case, would be minimal, so there is no point to them pursuing it. You should check out http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/godfrey3.htm for more info and a sample of Larry's better works.

    Godfrey has used the British libel laws (which are heavily in favor of the plaintiff) to harass countless people, many of whom settle out of court for a few thousand bucks, just to make him go away. The smart ones have just ignored him, especially those out of the UK court jurisdiction.

    The only frigtening implication will be if this leads to a climate where everyone must censor themselves and follow the lowest common legal denominator.

  5. Rain on you parade, but by craw · · Score: 4

    Jon Katz and RMS are flaming idiots who secretly use MS Outlook Express to check their e-mail at their AOL accounts. They are obviously not nerds since they use both AOL and MS.

    There, I just said here at /. for all to read. Katz and RMS are incredibly offended by this as they do not use AOL and consider themselves nerds. Steve Case is offended that I have disparaged his fine company. Bill Gates calls out to his minions that he now wants my head on a platter.

    Comments are owned by the Poster.

    Whatcha gonna do when they come for you.

    Rob, I hate to raise this issue, but suing a ISP has relevance for this site. I may be wrong but some of the comments that are posted here may be interpreted as being rather inflammatory. This leads to the following questions.

    1) Is your ISP responsible for the /. content?
    2) Are you protected from our stupid comments?
    3) Will you turn over your log files when the Man slaps you with a subpoena? Remember Raytheon?
    4) There are court case related to posting links to libelous material. Do you have some policy with regard to this as we can include links in our comments?
    5) Moderators control what is up and what is down. Can they be held accountable for their actions? You do have log files that document the actions of the moderators.

    I feel like a real asshole right now for asking these questions. Please flame me if I'm wrong but I would hate to see bad things happen to you or to this site. One suggestion is to contact a group of legal eagles that would probably be willing to provide you with some info. I don't know if they are the right ppl but the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School might be a good place to start.

    Just before I sent this in I checked the other comments and saw that chabotic raises similar concerns.

    Off topic: Everybody's posting should start at the default level (0 or 1) unless they come from someone who is always -1.

    1. Re:Rain on you parade, but by hawk · · Score: 2

      I'm a lawyer, but this is not legal advice, but a comment on the general principles involved. If you need advice on this matter, see a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.

      If slashdot were completely unmoderated, it would probably have near-absolute protection under U.S. law. Individual posters would be liable, but the site would probably be something similar to a common carrier.

      If edited for content, though, The situation changes, at least somewhat. Once the task of editing out comments is undertaken, it must be done properly.

      However, moderartion on slashdot doesn't remove comments, but is a listing of opinions about the quality of the article. My gut feelign is that this would leave it in the first category of protection, but I'd really need to do some research to be certain. So unless someone wants to send a $5k retainer, I'm certainly not going to stand behind this first impression :)

      There is potential foreign liability, though: U.S. law can't protect a U.S. from being sued abroad. However, if a foreign jugdment wouldn't be much use without foreign assets to seize. THe judgment could be brought to the U.S., but a U.S. court would not enter the foreign judgment for actions taken in hte U.S. that are protected by U.S. law.

  6. The problem is definition of publication by Kaa · · Score: 2

    Now, technically, in English law, the act of serving an article from a news spool is publication.

    Aye, here is the rub. That clearly should not be so. To me, serving the article from a server is more akin to *delivering* a newspaper rather than publishing it.

    The major problem is that this ruling makes ISPs responsible for bits that pass through their wires. Every crackpot with an axe to grind can now pester ISPs to cancel postings he doesn't like. And I presume that the same logic can (and would) be applied to web sites.

    Kaa

    --

    Kaa
    Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
  7. Misconceptions by rjk · · Score: 2

    In the UK, delivering a newspaper which you knew to contain defamatory remarks would indeed be illegal. Yes, our libel laws really do allow the libelled party to go after the distributors, if the distributors know that they are distributing libellous material.

    See http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/godfrey2 .htm for more details.

    IANAL, but I can at least read the facts of the case; I would urge other posters to do likewise.

    I addressed the question about nuisance complaints in another posting. We had a similar fuss in this country about obscenity on Usenet a year or two back; it's long since been something of a non-question, thanks to the efforts of the IWF. All we need now is a similar structure for dealing with claims of libel (and if done right it will benefit both ISPs and victims of libel).

  8. "civil protest"? by rew · · Score: 2

    I suggest that we contact all the ISPs in the UK and notify them of the libellous information that they have on their OWN homepage, or the homepages of the companies for which they provide bandwidth.

    They are now required to remove that information without a chance to protest the fact that the statement is true or not.

    My guess is that this will get a point across. ;-)

    Regards,

    Roger Wolff.

    ------------sample letter follows-----------------
    Dear ISP,

    As of today, I consider your homepage (http://www.ISP.co.uk/) slander against my person. I therefore request you to take the appropriate action: remove that page from your homepage.

    I would find it acceptable if you would replace the page with:

    "We've been informed that our homepage contains slanderous material, and requested to remove that information from our homepage. Due to the recent court decision, we have to comply with this request, without questioning its validity.

    Please help us get this stupid situation reversed. [URL to page explaining possible actions that UK residents can use to help the new law]

    Thank you.

    ISP.


    (for normal business, [to the old homepage])
    "

    J. R. Slashdot-reader.