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.]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @07:09AM
Speaking is also an action.
If I type a comment on SN, it's clearly speech, right? But what if I type a launch command at a nuclear missile control computer? It's the exact same type of action, pressing keys on the keyboard. Therefore it should also be speech, and therefore protected, right?
What if the missile control computer has voice recognition, and I literally speak that command?
What if I don't myself interact with the computer, but am in command and order someone below me to do it?
What if I'm not in command, but know that the one in control of the missile launch computer trusts me so much that if I tell him to do it, he'll do it without thinking? When I'm telling him to launch the missile, is it free speech?
What if there's no such trust, but by continuously talking to him, I finally convince him to launch the missile, is that free speech?
Now what if I'm not talking to him personally, but giving a talk for all missile control staff, where I try to convince them that it is necessary to launch a nuclear missile, and one of them gets convinced and launches the missile?
What if it is not a talk directed specifically to the missile staff, but a public talk, but I know there's missile control staff in the room?
What if I don't know that missile staff is in the room, but I suspect there might be?
What if I put it on YouTube in the hope that some missile control person watches it, gets convinced and decides to launch the missile?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:20PM
Speaking is also an action.
I've been through this, and I've replied to so many examples like the ones you've put forth already that it should be perfectly clear what my position is. Just read the other comments.