Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Author Topic: Google wins ruling on defamatory content  (Read 1512 times)

AdrianH

  • Guest
Google wins ruling on defamatory content
« on: March 03, 2012, 07:06:57 PM »


DON'T shoot the messenger: Victory for Google as top judge rules it can't be held responsible for defamatory blog posts

By Tom Gardner

(Last updated at 10:03 PM on 2nd March 2012)
Quote
A High Court judge has likened Google to a graffiti strewn wall in a landmark judgement which says it cannot be held responsible for libellous or offensive content.

Mr Justice Eady said the internet giant was not bound by laws governing publishers, giving the company widespread immunity from English defamation laws.

In the judgement, which will have huge implications for freedom of speech in this country, he said: ‘It is no doubt often true that the owner of a wall which has been festooned, overnight, with defamatory graffiti could acquire scaffolding and have it all deleted with whitewash.’............ (more)


Some common sense at last, site admin/owners will be releived to see this ruling.
Logged

burakkucat

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 30553
  • Over the Rainbow Bridge
    • The ELRepo Project
Re: Google wins ruling on defamatory content
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2012, 08:14:17 PM »

Agreed, some common sense by a "big wig".  :clap2:
Logged
:cat:  100% Linux and, previously, Unix. Co-founder of the ELRepo Project.

Please consider making a donation to support the running of this site.

asbokid

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1286
    • Hacking the 2Wire
Re: Google wins ruling on defamatory content
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2012, 09:11:05 PM »

Worrying logic from some of those leaving comments on the Mail website.

An allegation of defamation should be determined in a court.   That's why we have courts.    The alternative is a system of arbitrary censorship where anyone, guilty or not of an allegation, can simply shout "libel" to gag critics.

The plaintiff, Mr Payam Tamiz, was a prospective Conservative candidate. Just not cut out for the job to have such a hissy-fit over some shallow blog comments on a back water of the internet.

The sad thing is that very few people had heard of Mr Tamiz before this case.  And even fewer would have read the defamatory comments made about him.

But now, because of the publicity, millions of us will read the outrageous and disgusting blog comments since they are recorded for posterity in Mr Justice Eady's judgment  :o  [1]

Certainly no one can accuse Mr Justice Eady of being a stuffy old fart.... "Nowadays, I do not suppose that..sleeping with girls at houseparties..would be taken to be defamatory by "right-thinking members of society"..

Why am I never invited to these "houseparties" ?!

cheers, a

[1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/449.html


« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 09:19:01 PM by asbokid »
Logged