ISPs and defamation law: hold fire, Robert Jay – Ashley Hurst

Although online issues were not covered in great detail by the Leveson inquiry, Robert Jay QC’s comments to the Singapore Academy of Law concerning the liability of internet service providers (ISPs) earlier this week are startling.

Case Law, Court of Human Rights, Yildrim v Turkey – Closing down of “Google Sites” breached Article 10

In the case of Yildrim v Turkey (Case No 3111/10) the Court of Human Rights decided that a Court order blocking access to “Google Sites” in Turkey was a violation of Article 10.  The measure was not “prescribed by law” because it was not reasonably foreseeable or in accordance with the rule of law.  The judgment is available only in French.

Clause 5 Still Needs Work: Joint Committee on Human Rights delivers its verdict on the Defamation Bill – Ashley Hurst

Just a few days before the Defamation Bill receives its line-by-line scrutiny in the House of Lords Grand Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report on the Bill.

The report centres on what the Joint Committee considers to be the key elements of the Defamation Bill that impact on human rights, being the proposed codification of the Reynolds defence in clause 4, the new defence for website operators in clause 5, and the proposed single publication rule in clause 8. In this post, I follow on from my previous postings about internet libel and clause 5 (see Part 1 and Part 2) by commenting on the Joint Committee’s recommendations as to clause 5.

Internet Libel, Part 2: A new streamlined procedure for declaratory relief? – Ashley Hurst

The Government has recognised when drafting clause 5 of the Defamation Bill that there is a need for individuals and companies to be able to complain effectively to internet intermediaries in respect of libellous content but that internet intermediaries need greater protection from liability for content for which they are not responsible. However, as discussed in the first part of this post, in trying to strike a balance between claimants’ reputations and freedom of speech, perhaps the most difficult issue is how to deal with anonymity.

Internet Libel, Part 1: What makes it Different? – Ashley Hurst

Despite the growing number of internet libel cases in recent years, most of the debate around libel reform has concerned the chilling effect of UK libel laws on the newspaper industry. However, there is perhaps a greater chilling effect happening as a result of European intermediary liability laws, which have led to internet intermediaries removing defamatory content without a great deal of scrutiny. At the same time, many genuine victims of online defamation are being left without a remedy due to the challenges of taking action against anonymous users.

Internet Anonymity: A Very British Dilemma – Paul Bernal

Andy Smith, a senior security official at the Cabinet Office, caused quite a stir at the Parliament and Internet Conference last month, when he suggested that people should use false names and provide false information on the internet – and in particular, when using social networking sites. Reaction was explosive in both directions.