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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @05:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @05:13AM (#197691)

    In America, we have the doctrine of "punishing assholes." You can be a member of the KKK and scream "The niggers are raping America" at the top of your lungs, and you won't get into trouble for it with the law, but you also won't have any friends. You'll be fucked over by society, because you are an asshole. On the other hand, if you scream, "Kill all the niggers," and someone starts killing black people, you will get punished by the law and by society both, because you are an asshole.

    Sure, we say lots about "free speech" and "freedom of religion" and "freedom of the press," and we mean it, until you're an asshole. For reference, see US vs. Reynolds [wikipedia.org].

    Wait, you say, who defines who an asshole is? Well, basically everyone around you. And they're all armed, and they're all Americans who hate assholes, and they invented the concept of lynching. So you learn not to be an asshole, or the Evolution Fairy comes and bonks you on the head with her Wand of Natural Selection. And that is why David Cameron is British and not American.

    The end.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @05:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @05:16AM (#197692)

    Oh, wait, I meant Reynolds v. United States [wikipedia.org]. US v. Reyonlds is *totally* different.

  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:23PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:23PM (#197876)

    The only thing I'm concerned about here is government intervention, not reputations being ruined.

    On the other hand, if you scream, "Kill all the niggers," and someone starts killing black people, you will get punished by the law and by society both, because you are an asshole.

    Sure, we say lots about "free speech" and "freedom of religion" and "freedom of the press," and we mean it, until you're an asshole. For reference, see US vs. Reynolds.

    As soon as government interferes with speech, a great injustice has been done, as I've been saying the entire time. The government has inserted imaginary text into the constitution to get around this obvious prohibition of the government interfering with speech, but they have no legitimate authority to do so, and are therefore acting like a mere group of thugs.

    And that is why David Cameron is British and not American.

    That doesn't really explain the current crop of politicians in the US.