Shock European court decision: Websites are liable for users’ comments

I wasn't sure what forum this belongs in so please move if needed.

In a surprise decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has ruled that the Estonian news site Delfi is responsible for anonymous and allegedly defamatory comments from its readers. 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."

This seems like an important ruling by the ECHR that may change the way sights are monitored and what content they will allow users to post.

I don't know why a site should be held liable for what an anonymous user might post? The internet is changing, pretty soon ATS and other sites might be charged with terrorism for letting people say they don't believe the official 9/11 story.

arstechnica.co.uk...

a reply to: alienjuggalo

It seems like it would pave the way for curtailing free speech in the name of liability protection from the websites.

this could start wars !!!

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
I wasn't sure what forum this belongs in so please move if needed.

In a surprise decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has ruled that the Estonian news site Delfi is responsible for anonymous and allegedly defamatory comments from its readers. 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."

This seems like an important ruling by the ECHR that may change the way sights are monitored and what content they will allow users to post.

I don't know why a site should be held liable for what an anonymous user might post? The internet is changing, pretty soon ATS and other sites might be charged with terrorism for letting people say they don't believe the official 9/11 story.

arstechnica.co.uk...

I have not doubt that is where this is headed. Its only a matter of time. The Government and its Corporate interests are doubtless growing concerned that there cool-aid propaganda is being tarnished or altogether ignored in some cases, by virtue of the spread of alternative beliefs and opinions. Its really just a matter of time.

There ya go...Im done posting anything any more...especially if under the influence.

With all these new trade deals...this is just the tip of the iceberg. Probably said to much on the net as it is.

Bastards


a reply to: alienjuggalo

a reply to: alienjuggalo

More reason for MegaNet

Well known internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom
recently send out a tweet in which he announces
that his upcoming decentralized, non-IP based
network MegaNet will make use of the Bitcoin
blockchain.

Like many of Dotcom's announcements regarding
MegaNet, however, details are lacking, and listeners
are left guessing. Mohit Kumar founder and editor
in chief of Hacker News said: “Decentralizing the
Internet means to take the power of the Web away
from powerful hands of governments and corporations
and put it back in the hands of online users.”

If it comes, it won't come a moment too soon.

Are Kim Dotcom and Sarah Torrent perhaps working on something like this? Probably not. More likely his tweet was exactly what his tweet looked like—a quick comment or idea that grabbed a lot of attention because of his status and because of its mention of fellow internet advocate Sarah Torrent. If he is working on something, it is likely another idea entirely; perhaps a blockchain alternative to Maidsafe en.wikipedia.org... (like Storj), but in that case he would have no reason to be so cryptic. Whatever he is working on, he will surely let us know when he is ready; this article is just a stab in the dark.

cointelegraph.com...

a reply to: alienjuggalo

When you own the internet you own the private secrets of these dirty bureaucrats.
They'll do anything you want as long as you protect their image and paycheck.

This is how we slide the last few rungs into Orwell's nightmare.

a reply to: char-lee

Just wait until TPP and TISA open supra-national tribunals.

Getting opposing views shut down completely will be trivial for Monsanto, Merck or a sovereign. It will be the end of western civilization as we know it.

The time to fight is now, before they sink all hooks in even deeper.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

The f*ck you say!? Well there goes the neighborhood! Could the US be far behind? Did the Eu join russia and china and korea when we were not looking?

youtu.be...

Need I say more?

originally posted by: trifecta


Need I say more

Might help if the video worked, here let me get that for you!

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Good God...

At what point does personal responsibility come into play? When did the "its always someone else's fault" excuse become the norm?

Secondly I am curious how this would affect Russian propaganda efforts.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

HORSE S----

Bloody hell... I nearly swore then...

Look, the European Court of Human Rights was created to enforce standards of behaviour on nations and organisations, in order to prevent abuses of human rights. It was created on the back of a great deal of suffering, which stemmed from poverty, stupidity, intolerance, and the evil of a select few individuals who focused the negativity of the era into a cohesive and totalitarian whole, bent on dominion over the Earth and all its inhabitants, and the termination of all members of the species who failed to conform to an arbitrary standard they set for themselves.

The ECHR was created to ensure freedom of thought, expression, religious and personal identity, and defend those who were oppressed for their opinions and political views. It was created to bring to account, those who would oppress others, or kill them for having a divergent attitude toward a given topic or political facet.

The absolute, unmitigated twaddle that this latest ruling represents however, is one which urinates in the face of that mission statement, and indeed in the faces of every person who gave their life, or their sanity, or their blood and tears, to the effort to free Europe from the tyrant which ruled over it many decades ago, an effort without which, the ECHR would never have existed.

I am sick to my guts over this ruling, and have lost all respect for the body which issued it. If the ECHR really thinks that this ruling will improve the lot of citizens here, then it has lost sight of its mission statement, and the political situation in the region entirely.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree

originally posted by: trifecta




Need I say more

Might help if the video worked, here let me get that for you!

Thanks! I'll have to practice better due diligence, lol.

Star for you.

The scary thing is, this is who's on the Science committee.....

a reply to: TrueBrit

Welcome to virtual book burning 2015!

a reply to: alienjuggalo

France Moves to Make ‘Conspiracy Theories’ Illegal by Government Decree
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Source: www.voltairenet.org...

The President of the French Republic, François Hollande, has assimilated what he calls "conspiracy theories" to Nazism and called to prevent their dissemination on the Internet and social networks.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Could the US be far behind?
Did the Eu join russia and china and korea when we were not looking?

No, and Yes.

This sets an alarming precedent. That's what I'm worried about; that other rulings might come into effect based on the implementation of this one. Of course this will lead to severe censorship - anything perceived as even potentially offensive or controversial would be removed from websites, exposing people only to information that the companies behind the sites wish people to be exposed to. This in turn will influence people's ways of thinking.

If this becomes more widespread, it'd have a pretty significant psychological impact on people. People need to be offended, they need to argue, they need hear different opinions and have their opinions critiqued.

Censor the internet, and you're censoring humanity.

originally posted by: char-lee
a reply to: alienjuggalo

It seems like it would pave the way for curtailing free speech in the name of liability protection from the websites.

This has got sod all to do with "free speech" and more to do with protecting people from libellous comments which may cause problems in their lives, or even end up with them having their lives destroyed.

For example, you have the right to "free speech" in that you can say what you like, but with that comes a responsibility. To many seem to think "free speech" allows them to say what they like, about whomever they like, wherever they like, but you are also responsible for what you say and if it isn't true, or defamatory or endangers people then you should expect consequences.

EDIT: As for making the sites liable, it is merely falling in line with other media. A publisher can be sued if a book is released with defamatory claims. A newspaper can be sued if it carries libellous comments. This is no different.