11 ms·

The headline is pretty misleading. The ECHR decided that it's not a breach of european rights if a member countries law stipulates a liability for a commercial

The headline is pretty misleading. The ECHR decided that it's not a breach of european rights if a member countries law stipulates a liability for a commercial provider. For example german law still requires that the provider is notified before any liability takes effect. So the provider is liable to remove offending content in a reasonable time after being notified, and this decision doesn't change anything. For german readers a well written summary http://www.internet-law.de/2015/06/forenbetreiber-haftet-fuer-beleidigungen-der-nutzer-oder-doch-nicht.html http://www.internet-law.de/2015/06/forenbetreiber-haftet-fue...

zerocrates 11y ago
The article does eventually get around to being a little more levelheaded than its headline: "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." Interestingly, US law is basically the exact opposite in this area and is very protective of website operators and service providers, in a way that it's not in other areas like copyright. The article notes there is (or can be) a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for defamation in Europe, but the surviving parts of the Communications Decency Act in the US really insulate websites from having to do much of anything at all about information their users provide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- Xylakant 11y ago
  The system is not exactly DCMA-style as you don't have to first take down the content and the provider can actually fight the decision on his own - which actually happens from time to time. Small providers and private persons obviously still suffer since they have a hard time defending but I seriously can't think of a better alternative. There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO.
  - maxlybbert 11y ago
    > There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech Why? I understand that if I run a blog I may not want to be associated with some comments people leave, so I have an incentive to police the comment section. But why should I be required to remove comments that other people may find offensive? Even comments that can only be taken as offensive? First, if people feel a need to advertise ignorance, intolerance, immaturity, etc. I see no reason to keep them from doing so. It makes life a lot easier for the rest of us when we need to determine who to associate with. Second, in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Don't silence your enemies; destroy their arguments. Show how they're immature, intolerant, ignorant, etc. I prefer to win the debate by having the better argument instead of by silencing critics.
    - marak830 11y ago
      This, im tired of having to worry if some speech will upset someone. HN has a fairly decent system of hiding oncw downvotes, arstechnica does as well. Maybe its time some people began acting like adults, and engaging in debate, or even just ignoring it completly. Someone called your company shit? So freaking what. Your a company, not a holy relic, suck it up and keep going, it wont matter in 3 minutes.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        The discussion was about hate speech; calling some company shit is not hate speech under any legislation I know of. Let's not fall into arguing against strawmen.
        marak830 11y ago
        Sorry i should have specified, i mean in a more generalised manner. But even then, do words really effect people that much? If the community has the power to downvote/hide idiotic comments, and to argue through rationalised speech, theres no need to get your panties in a bunch.
fweespeech 11y ago
Yeah but requiring a notice-and-takedown approach is quite reasonable. This is the equivalent of all EU countries being legally allowed to ban free speech on the Internet at a national level, if desired. Yeah, its not "changing anything" but its tantamount to admitting that Estonia is not a functioning democracy that respects fundamental human rights like free speech....and that it is OKAY for the EU.
- arrrg 11y ago
  The zeal with which some people view free speech is really quite adorable. I don’t think it’s really so important. (It is important, sure, just not that important. And limiting free speech is certain a-ok with me, within limits.)
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    Very well. Stop posting completely on HN because HN is now liable even if it takes down hate speech within 24 hours of notification if it was run by an Estonian and/or had connections to Estonia [say via e-Residency]. Its cute how people are ready to sell other groups of people down the river without accepting the broader implications.
  - mikerichards 11y ago
    That's a horrible, immoral ideology you have there, but I'll defend your right to spew it.
- Xylakant 11y ago
  You're pretty harsh with your judgement. The decision stipulates that a fine of 320 EUR for a large commercial provider in a case where it took weeks to take down extreme occurrences of hate speech does not violate fundamental human rights. The relevant quote from the judgement: Based on the concrete assessment of the above aspects, taking into account the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the present case, in particular the extreme nature of the comments in question, the fact that the comments were posted in reaction to an article published by the applicant company on its professionally managed news portal run on a commercial basis, the insufficiency of the measures taken by the applicant company to remove without delay after publication comments amounting to hate speech and speech inciting violence and to ensure a realistic prospect of the authors of such comments being held liable, and the moderate sanction imposed on the applicant company, the Court finds that the domestic courts’ imposition of liability on the applicant company was based on relevant and sufficient grounds, having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the respondent State.

zerocrates 11y ago

The article does eventually get around to being a little more levelheaded than its headline: "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." Interestingly, US law is basically the exact opposite in this area and is very protective of website operators and service providers, in a way that it's not in other areas like copyright. The article notes there is (or can be) a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for defamation in Europe, but the surviving parts of the Communications Decency Act in the US really insulate websites from having to do much of anything at all about information their users provide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

Xylakant 11y ago
The system is not exactly DCMA-style as you don't have to first take down the content and the provider can actually fight the decision on his own - which actually happens from time to time. Small providers and private persons obviously still suffer since they have a hard time defending but I seriously can't think of a better alternative. There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech IMHO.
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  > There are morons on the internet and there need to be ways to enforce a takedown for hate speech Why? I understand that if I run a blog I may not want to be associated with some comments people leave, so I have an incentive to police the comment section. But why should I be required to remove comments that other people may find offensive? Even comments that can only be taken as offensive? First, if people feel a need to advertise ignorance, intolerance, immaturity, etc. I see no reason to keep them from doing so. It makes life a lot easier for the rest of us when we need to determine who to associate with. Second, in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Don't silence your enemies; destroy their arguments. Show how they're immature, intolerant, ignorant, etc. I prefer to win the debate by having the better argument instead of by silencing critics.
  - marak830 11y ago
    This, im tired of having to worry if some speech will upset someone. HN has a fairly decent system of hiding oncw downvotes, arstechnica does as well. Maybe its time some people began acting like adults, and engaging in debate, or even just ignoring it completly. Someone called your company shit? So freaking what. Your a company, not a holy relic, suck it up and keep going, it wont matter in 3 minutes.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The discussion was about hate speech; calling some company shit is not hate speech under any legislation I know of. Let's not fall into arguing against strawmen.
      - marak830 11y ago
        Sorry i should have specified, i mean in a more generalised manner. But even then, do words really effect people that much? If the community has the power to downvote/hide idiotic comments, and to argue through rationalised speech, theres no need to get your panties in a bunch.

fweespeech 11y ago

Yeah but requiring a notice-and-takedown approach is quite reasonable. This is the equivalent of all EU countries being legally allowed to ban free speech on the Internet at a national level, if desired. Yeah, its not "changing anything" but its tantamount to admitting that Estonia is not a functioning democracy that respects fundamental human rights like free speech....and that it is OKAY for the EU.

arrrg 11y ago
The zeal with which some people view free speech is really quite adorable. I don’t think it’s really so important. (It is important, sure, just not that important. And limiting free speech is certain a-ok with me, within limits.)
- fweespeech 11y ago
  Very well. Stop posting completely on HN because HN is now liable even if it takes down hate speech within 24 hours of notification if it was run by an Estonian and/or had connections to Estonia [say via e-Residency]. Its cute how people are ready to sell other groups of people down the river without accepting the broader implications.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  That's a horrible, immoral ideology you have there, but I'll defend your right to spew it.
Xylakant 11y ago
You're pretty harsh with your judgement. The decision stipulates that a fine of 320 EUR for a large commercial provider in a case where it took weeks to take down extreme occurrences of hate speech does not violate fundamental human rights. The relevant quote from the judgement: Based on the concrete assessment of the above aspects, taking into account the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the present case, in particular the extreme nature of the comments in question, the fact that the comments were posted in reaction to an article published by the applicant company on its professionally managed news portal run on a commercial basis, the insufficiency of the measures taken by the applicant company to remove without delay after publication comments amounting to hate speech and speech inciting violence and to ensure a realistic prospect of the authors of such comments being held liable, and the moderate sanction imposed on the applicant company, the Court finds that the domestic courts’ imposition of liability on the applicant company was based on relevant and sufficient grounds, having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the respondent State.