3 ms·

I do recall an article being submitted to HN saying that the UK also has a law making site owners liable for user-generated comments unless they pro-actively mo

by bradmoo 13y ago

I do recall an article being submitted to HN saying that the UK also has a law making site owners liable for user-generated comments unless they pro-actively moderate them. I don't understand there logic behind it, it's not possible to moderate any website with a decent amount of traffic. I'm suprised this is happening in Estonia, I always thought of Estonia as excelling in the tech world compared with most EU countries.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I do recall an article being submitted to HN saying that the UK also has a law making site owners liable for user-generated comments unless they pro-actively moderate them. I don't understand there logic behind it, it's not possible to moderate any website with a decent amount of traffic. The idea that publishers have a positive duty to assure that what they publish is not harmful (libelous, or otherwise) with limited defenses is pretty common globally; the US idea that the freedom of speech is so strong publishers have a fairly minimal duty in this regard so long as harms are not intentional (or reckless in some cases) is, AFAIK, less common. So the fact that it is burdensome on publishers and creates costs that would make certain forms of interaction difficult isn't considered problematic from that perspective -- what's problematic is the unpoliceable publications.
- jfb 13y ago
  Exactly. It's a classic example of the clash of incommensurable goods.
russell 13y ago
I remember reading a discussion on a UK site that a person could be convicted of libel in the UK even if the statement was true. (I am American, so dont base your defense on my comments.)
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I remember reading a discussion on a UK site that a person could be convicted of libel in the UK even if the statement was true. But that's true in the U.S also. It's called "false light", and basically it means you can construct a description of someone that's entirely true, but because of its negative slant, the person is put in a false light and you can be sued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light Quote : "False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being" rather than protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation[1] and in being about the impression created rather than being about true or false." [emphasis added]

by bradmoo 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I do recall an article being submitted to HN saying that the UK also has a law making site owners liable for user-generated comments unless they pro-actively moderate them. I don't understand there logic behind it, it's not possible to moderate any website with a decent amount of traffic. The idea that publishers have a positive duty to assure that what they publish is not harmful (libelous, or otherwise) with limited defenses is pretty common globally; the US idea that the freedom of speech is so strong publishers have a fairly minimal duty in this regard so long as harms are not intentional (or reckless in some cases) is, AFAIK, less common. So the fact that it is burdensome on publishers and creates costs that would make certain forms of interaction difficult isn't considered problematic from that perspective -- what's problematic is the unpoliceable publications.

jfb 13y ago
Exactly. It's a classic example of the clash of incommensurable goods.

russell 13y ago

I remember reading a discussion on a UK site that a person could be convicted of libel in the UK even if the statement was true. (I am American, so dont base your defense on my comments.)

lutusp 13y ago
> I remember reading a discussion on a UK site that a person could be convicted of libel in the UK even if the statement was true. But that's true in the U.S also. It's called "false light", and basically it means you can construct a description of someone that's entirely true, but because of its negative slant, the person is put in a false light and you can be sued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light Quote : "False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being" rather than protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation[1] and in being about the impression created rather than being about true or false." [emphasis added]