6 ms·

B.S. this is orders of magnitude less significant than big studios removing random youtube videos from the air, accusing them of copyright infringement, even o

by gcb0 10y ago

B.S. this is orders of magnitude less significant than big studios removing random youtube videos from the air, accusing them of copyright infringement, even ones that have no background music, just because it says bad things about something the studio worked on.

twblalock 10y ago
Actually, this is far more significant than YouTube videos being taken down. If Yelp loses, this case could make it possible for pretty much any site that accepts user comments, including YouTube, social networks like Facebook, review sites, advertising sites like Craiglist, and even personal blogs with comment sections, to be held accountable for what users post. That could lead to a significant amount of prior restraint which would have the effect of restricting online speech in places where it is most useful. That would be much further-reaching than anything YouTube does.
- kjksf 10y ago
  Where did you get that from? The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing. Nowhere does it say that Yelp was "held accountable" for anything. It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict. The sky is not falling.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    I didn't say this was prior restraint. I said it could lead to prior restraint. So does the article, and so does common sense -- if companies can be hauled into court whenever someone posts libel on their sites, they will take steps to prevent such libel from being posted in the first place, e.g. by proactively moderating and filtering negative reviews. The article explicitly addresses this possibility.
    - cft 10y ago
      Perhaps you should read the article to the end before commenting: "Glassdoor.com, which posts anonymous employee comments about companies to inform job-seekers about working conditions, says the ruling began to show up in letters demanding the removal of comments and disclosure of users’ identities almost immediately after it was handed down."
      - twblalock 10y ago
        This supports my point that sites can be held accountable for users' posts. It certainly does not undermine my point in any way. And I did read the entire article, and I understood it, thank you very much. You should apologize for suggesting that I did not. EDIT: nevermind, the response was in the wrong part of the thread.
        cft 10y ago
        Oops sorry. I commented at the wrong level: this was meant to be a response to kjksf above in the thread, trying to support your point...
        twblalock 10y ago
        In that case, I apologize to you.
        sharemywin 10y ago
        No problem you can just sue and get the judge compel HN to publish the apology.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - cmiles74 10y ago
        I'm pretty confident that Glassdoor received these sorts of letter both before and after this case was publicized. In all cases, they need not take any action unless it happens to be a court order. I don't think being compelled to remove a post that has been judged unlawful in court effects Yelp's "immunity"; no one is holding Yelp accountable for the unlawful posts.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing. Yelp was not a party to the case. > It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict. Yelp was ordered to do something, but Yelp did not receive any opportunity for a trial.
    - lsaferite 10y ago
      Yelp benefits from the safe harbour provisions by not being the originator of the comments. Being legally ordered to remove a comment in no way threatens that provision.
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        A trial to which they're not a named party still shouldn't be able to issue them such a court order.
        nkurz 10y ago
        You seem to have thought more about these issues than I have. I don't see why it should matter if Yelp is a named party. Is it because this is civil and not criminal? Let me try a few parallels, and perhaps you can point out the flaws. Someone posts my original work to Youtube. I sue the individual, and the court agrees that posting was illegal and orders the plaintiff to remove it. The plaintiff says that they no longer have the password. The court sends an order to Youtube saying that the should take it down. Now, there's a special procedure for this under the DMCA if the claim is copyright infringement, but are you saying that Youtube should be able to ignore the court order? An identity thief applies for credit cards in my name. They are convicted, and the court orders the bank to cancel the credit card account that was fraudulently obtained. The bank is not a named party. Would you say that the bank should keep account until I sue them separately? A children's toy is badly constructed and dangerous. The manufacturer is sued by an aggrieved parent. A court makes an award to the parent, and orders that sales of the toy be halted. All resellers receive a court order telling them to stop selling the product. Should they comply? I'm not seeing the hazard in having companies obey court orders even if they are not named parties. Presumably there is a process where they can refuse and get a court hearing about the validity of the order? Or is the issue that there is no such process? Edit: I'm reading Volokh's amicus now (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3038335/Hassell-v-Bird-Internet-Law-Scholars-Letter-1.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3038335/Hassell-v...), which makes it clearer that the distinction is something like "because speech is different". I don't really understand his argument, though, or why he keeps using "allegedly libelous" to describe something a court has found to be libelous. I think it's because he's arguing that the collection of comments (or reviews) published by Yelp is contextually different than the individual comment, and that one may be libelous and the other not. While there is some truth to this, I think there is a difference between a conscious compilation, and a "bulletin board" type system where posters can add whatever they wish without review.
- gcb0 10y ago
  the court was not holding yelp accountable, they asked yelp to remove a post that a jury found to be criminal. YouTube silences you without a court order or anything.
runholm 10y ago
What you are describing is a problem that exists only in the domain of Googles DMCA handling policies. The Yelp issue is in the domain of US law.

by gcb0 10y ago

twblalock 10y ago

Actually, this is far more significant than YouTube videos being taken down. If Yelp loses, this case could make it possible for pretty much any site that accepts user comments, including YouTube, social networks like Facebook, review sites, advertising sites like Craiglist, and even personal blogs with comment sections, to be held accountable for what users post. That could lead to a significant amount of prior restraint which would have the effect of restricting online speech in places where it is most useful. That would be much further-reaching than anything YouTube does.

kjksf 10y ago
Where did you get that from? The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing. Nowhere does it say that Yelp was "held accountable" for anything. It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict. The sky is not falling.
- twblalock 10y ago
  I didn't say this was prior restraint. I said it could lead to prior restraint. So does the article, and so does common sense -- if companies can be hauled into court whenever someone posts libel on their sites, they will take steps to prevent such libel from being posted in the first place, e.g. by proactively moderating and filtering negative reviews. The article explicitly addresses this possibility.
  - cft 10y ago
    Perhaps you should read the article to the end before commenting: "Glassdoor.com, which posts anonymous employee comments about companies to inform job-seekers about working conditions, says the ruling began to show up in letters demanding the removal of comments and disclosure of users’ identities almost immediately after it was handed down."
    - twblalock 10y ago
      This supports my point that sites can be held accountable for users' posts. It certainly does not undermine my point in any way. And I did read the entire article, and I understood it, thank you very much. You should apologize for suggesting that I did not. EDIT: nevermind, the response was in the wrong part of the thread.
      - cft 10y ago
        Oops sorry. I commented at the wrong level: this was meant to be a response to kjksf above in the thread, trying to support your point...
        twblalock 10y ago
        In that case, I apologize to you.
      - sharemywin 10y ago
        No problem you can just sue and get the judge compel HN to publish the apology.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - cmiles74 10y ago
      I'm pretty confident that Glassdoor received these sorts of letter both before and after this case was publicized. In all cases, they need not take any action unless it happens to be a court order. I don't think being compelled to remove a post that has been judged unlawful in court effects Yelp's "immunity"; no one is holding Yelp accountable for the unlawful posts.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing. Yelp was not a party to the case. > It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict. Yelp was ordered to do something, but Yelp did not receive any opportunity for a trial.
  - lsaferite 10y ago
    Yelp benefits from the safe harbour provisions by not being the originator of the comments. Being legally ordered to remove a comment in no way threatens that provision.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      A trial to which they're not a named party still shouldn't be able to issue them such a court order.
      - nkurz 10y ago
        You seem to have thought more about these issues than I have. I don't see why it should matter if Yelp is a named party. Is it because this is civil and not criminal? Let me try a few parallels, and perhaps you can point out the flaws. Someone posts my original work to Youtube. I sue the individual, and the court agrees that posting was illegal and orders the plaintiff to remove it. The plaintiff says that they no longer have the password. The court sends an order to Youtube saying that the should take it down. Now, there's a special procedure for this under the DMCA if the claim is copyright infringement, but are you saying that Youtube should be able to ignore the court order? An identity thief applies for credit cards in my name. They are convicted, and the court orders the bank to cancel the credit card account that was fraudulently obtained. The bank is not a named party. Would you say that the bank should keep account until I sue them separately? A children's toy is badly constructed and dangerous. The manufacturer is sued by an aggrieved parent. A court makes an award to the parent, and orders that sales of the toy be halted. All resellers receive a court order telling them to stop selling the product. Should they comply? I'm not seeing the hazard in having companies obey court orders even if they are not named parties. Presumably there is a process where they can refuse and get a court hearing about the validity of the order? Or is the issue that there is no such process? Edit: I'm reading Volokh's amicus now (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3038335/Hassell-v-Bird-Internet-Law-Scholars-Letter-1.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3038335/Hassell-v...), which makes it clearer that the distinction is something like "because speech is different". I don't really understand his argument, though, or why he keeps using "allegedly libelous" to describe something a court has found to be libelous. I think it's because he's arguing that the collection of comments (or reviews) published by Yelp is contextually different than the individual comment, and that one may be libelous and the other not. While there is some truth to this, I think there is a difference between a conscious compilation, and a "bulletin board" type system where posters can add whatever they wish without review.
gcb0 10y ago
the court was not holding yelp accountable, they asked yelp to remove a post that a jury found to be criminal. YouTube silences you without a court order or anything.

runholm 10y ago

What you are describing is a problem that exists only in the domain of Googles DMCA handling policies. The Yelp issue is in the domain of US law.