Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can-do-anything,-but-you-can't-do-that dept.

Ars Technica reports that the European Court of Humans Rights has ruled Estonian news site Delfi is liable for hate speech posted in comments by users:

As the digital rights organisation Access notes, this goes against the European Union's e-commerce directive, which "guarantees liability protection for intermediaries that implement notice-and-takedown mechanisms on third-party comments." As such, Peter Micek, Senior Policy Counsel at Access, says the ECHR judgment has "dramatically shifted the internet away from the free expression and privacy protections that created the internet as we know it."

A post from the Media Legal Defence Initiative summarises the reasons why the court came to this unexpected decision. The ECHR cited "the 'extreme' nature of the comments which the court considered to amount to hate speech, the fact that they were published on a professionally-run and commercial news website," as well as the "insufficient measures taken by Delfi to weed out the comments in question and the low likelihood of a prosecution of the users who posted the comments," and the moderate sanction imposed on Delfi.

In the wake of this judgment, the legal situation is complicated. In an email to Ars, T J McIntyre, who is a lecturer in law and Chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, the lead organisation that won an important victory against EU data retention in the Court of Justice of the European Union last year, explained where things now stand. "Today's decision doesn't have any direct legal effect. It simply finds that Estonia's laws on site liability aren't incompatible with the ECHR. It doesn't directly require any change in national or EU law. Indirectly, however, it may be influential in further development of the law in a way which undermines freedom of expression. As a decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR it will be given weight by other courts and by legislative bodies."

[...]

As Access's Micek told Ars: "The website argued that its 'freedom to impart information created and published by third parties'—the commenters—was at stake. Delfi invoked its Article 10 rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights and the [ECHR] accepted the case."

Wiggin gives details that the claimant was a shipping company, an article concerning the operations of which attracted a large number of venomous comments. Despite the EUR30,000 claim for damages, the ECHR awarded non-pecuniary damages of EUR320.

Editor's Note: The ruling is not saying that all websites are accountable for all comments. In this case, the news site published an article which was intended to stir up public sentiment, and subsequently took no action when the user comments became so extreme as to fall under the 'Hate Speech' law. The publication of hate speech is an offence in Europe. Secondly, this occurred in Europe - claims that this has contravened the rights of people based upon the laws of other countries elsewhere are irrelevant. The Court accepted the news site's 'rights of freedom of expression' as covered by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @02:17AM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday June 18 2015, @02:17AM (#197646)

    If saying things can do things

    Well, it can't, and saying "I do" isn't an example of an action being performed in reality.

    You may say that the words themselves do not actually hurt you, but it is more than likely that you would not be harmed if these particular words were not spoken.

    Irrelevant. The words themselves do no harm, as you suggested.

    It is not just that hate speech hurts someone's feefees, it is that it can produce a reasonable fear of actual harm

    Fear is just another emotion, and it's inconsequential. Whether speech makes you fearful, sad, or angry doesn't matter; the speech itself has not harmed you. How others or yourself react to the speech may cause harm, but that is your/their own doing.

    that act is not free speech, it is assault.

    It's not an act; it's speech.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 18 2015, @03:50AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday June 18 2015, @03:50AM (#197674) Journal

    Anal, once again are you being purposely obtuse? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    Well, it can't, and saying "I do" isn't an example of an action being performed in reality.

    Really, you smarmy bastard! When I said "I Do", it was "until death do us part", so if you were not serious about doing this in reality, you're dead, bro! Or at least you are seriously liable for alimony, palimony, and all sorts of mony! Not real? Just wait until you have to go Bruce Jenner to pay the consequences of a non-real act!

    Fear is just another emotion, and it's inconsequential. Whether speech makes you fearful, sad, or angry doesn't matter; the speech itself has not harmed you. How others or yourself react to the speech may cause harm, but that is your/their own doing.

    Come closer, Anal, just a little closer. That's it! Do you feel safe? Good! You know that I would never slip a blade between your ribs, right? And I would never cut your head off your torso, and [Ethanol-Fueled levels of perversion here]. But just saying that I would never do these things should make you a tad bit suspicious, no? Can you start to feel the fear? OK, imagine you are, oh, lets say, trans. If I was saying such things, with the background of actual crimes against what I have identified you (correctly or not!) as being, you should be in fear of your life. And if I were to dox you, you would leave your house and find lodgings at the Holiday Inn on South 42nd Avenue in Bently Oklahoma (god, I sincerely wish that there is no such town or motel, since I am making them up for purposes of illustration. Maybe I should have used Belgium), would this cause you an emotion? Yes, it is just your emotion, and just because you are paranoid does not mean we are out to get you, but it does not mean the contrary, and since we have said, sub rosa, that we are after you, which is the more reasonable inference? That's it, hate speech is judged on the "reasonable person" standard. Which means, if a reasonable person were to take a death threat seriously, that threat is no longer "free speech", it is assault, infringing upon the freedom of another. Any fucktard libertarian ought to realize this. If the cannot, they obviously are not real libertarians, and the rest of us libertarians will have to hire Dawg the Bounty Hunter to find them and bring them in to face charges of damages against the rest of us.

    So, Anal, get it now? Or must we "taunt you a second tyme?".

    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:13PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:13PM (#197869)

      Really, you smarmy bastard! When I said "I Do", it was "until death do us part", so if you were not serious about doing this in reality, you're dead, bro! Or at least you are seriously liable for alimony, palimony, and all sorts of mony! Not real? Just wait until you have to go Bruce Jenner to pay the consequences of a non-real act!

      "I do." is speech, not an actual action like the ones I'm talking about.

      That's it, hate speech is judged on the "reasonable person" standard.

      The "reasonable person" standard for speech is pure nonsense, and the 'reasonable people' are expected to be authoritarians and anti-free speech. If I were on a jury, I would refuse to convict anyone based solely on their speech.

      Which means, if a reasonable person were to take a death threat seriously, that threat is no longer "free speech", it is assault

      Incorrect. Any actions someone else takes may be assault, but the speech itself is merely a threat (i.e. free speech).

      Any fucktard libertarian ought to realize this. If the cannot, they obviously are not real libertarians, and the rest of us libertarians will have to hire Dawg the Bounty Hunter to find them and bring them in to face charges of damages against the rest of us.

      For one thing, I never claimed to be a libertarian. Simply believing in absolute freedom of speech does not make one a libertarian by itself, I would think. Second of all, that's just a No True Scotsman fallacy.

      So, Anal, get it now? Or must we "taunt you a second tyme?".

      To determine whether or not an example you're thinking of putting forth will likely be effective on me, simply think about the logic I've been using this entire time and apply it to your example; that would make things quicker.