Google ‘comments’ don’t defame: UK court
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- In a landmark decision with tremendous importance for everyone in the UK with a net account, Google isn’t liable for defamatory comments in news articles, blogs and forums displayed in its search results, a high court judge in London has ruled.
The case was brought against Google’s US and UK operations by London-based Metropolitan International Schools, says The Guardian, going on:
“MIS runs distance learning courses in games development under the name Train2Game. MIS launched legal action over comments on the forum of a website that it claimed were defamatory and that appeared in Google’s search results.
“The company claimed that Google was liable as a publisher of defamatory comments. Google responded that it has no responsibility for the words and comments.”
Eady ruled Google was a “facilitator” and not a publisher of the content, stating »»»
When a snippet is thrown up on the user’s screen in response to his search, it points him in the direction of an entry somewhere on the web that corresponds, to a greater or lesser extent, to the search terms he has typed in.
It is for him to access or not, as he chooses. [Google] has merely, by the provision of its search service, played the role of a facilitator.
Also, “An analysis of the decision by the lawyers Pinsent Masons also noted that the ruling said the Google was not liable as a publisher of defamatory comments even in cases where it had been told that its search results contained potentially libellous comments,” says the story, adding:
“However, Eady did say that Google has a responsibility to block or take down content if it is notified with a legitimate complaint about libellous material.”
‘Important precedent for internet law in Canada’
In Canada last year, a BC supreme court judge ruled in p2pnet’s favour in a similar landmark case in which Vancouver businessman Wayne Crookes tried to claim merely linking to an article amounted to publication.
This is a very important precedent for internet law in Canada, confirming that website operators are not responsible for defamatory content on other websites to which they have merely linked, said then Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) director Philippa Lawson.
It`s also big win for free speech and for the internet as we know it.
Commenting on the p2pnet case, The law on linking to defamatory content has never been tested in the UK,” Out-Law.com had Struan Robertson, a technology lawyer with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind the site, stating.
“Crookes had argued that the mere fact of the material being online and available was enough to count as publication,” said the post, going on »»»
[p2pnet editor Jon] Newton said that for his postings to count as publication there would have to be proof that people had read it and had followed his links to the articles containing allegedly defamatory content.
“The issue in this case is if anyone followed the hyperlinks posted on the p2pnet site,” said Mr Justice Kelleher. “Without proof that persons other than the plaintiff visited the defendant’s website, clicked on the hyperlinks, and read the articles complained of, there cannot be a finding of publication.”
Mr Justice Kelleher said, though, that it was possible for hyperlinkers to bear responsibility for the material they linked to.
“It is not my decision that hyperlinking can never make a person liable for the contents of the remote site,” he said. “For example, if Mr Newton had written ‘the truth about Wayne Crookes is found here’ and ‘here’ is hyperlinked to the specific defamatory words, this might lead to a different conclusion.”
Earlier, “a French court held sites responsible for linking to material that illegally invaded the privacy of Olivier Martinez, Kylie Minogue’s ex-boyfriend,” said OUT-LAW, adding:
” ‘By sending the reader to the website celebrite-stars.blogspot.com the defender had effectively made an editorial decision,’ the court ruling said, in a rough translation from French.
” ‘The link in effect is a deliberate decision on the part of the defending organisation, contributing to the spread of illicit information, thus making him responsible as an editor of such information’.”
The Crookes case is under appeal.
‘Brilliant result for Google and other search engines’
Commenting on the Eady ruling, OUT-LAW’s Robertson says although it’s “good news for search engines,” it leaves questions unanswered.
“Justice Eady saw it as significant that Google had blocked the URLs supplied by MIS,” he says, continuing
“He talks of international recognition that search engines should have such systems in place. But he only hints that a search engine can become liable if it has no such take-down procedure he doesn’t put that beyond doubt, which leaves some uncertainty. It’s also a bit frustrating that we’re given no guidance on how fast or effective such take-down systems should be.”
“Nor did Justice Eady analyse in any depth the fact that the URLs were blocked only on Google.co.uk, not Google.com.
“Since the US site is also used by many people in the UK, it’s surprising that he didn’t explore the arguments for and against blocking the URLs at Google.com too.
“Nonetheless, this is the first judicial analysis of search engine liability for defamation under UK law and it’s undoubtedly a brilliant result for Google and other search engines.”
Definitely stay tuned.
The Guardian – Google not liable for defamation in search results, rules high court, July 20, 2009
ruled in p2pnet’s favour – Wayne Crookes vs p2pnet: full decision, October 28, 2008
Out-Law.com – Linking to defamatory material is not the same as publishing it, says Canadian court, October 28, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Will Canadian courts find ISOhunt just a “facilitator” (AKA: an indexing site) as well?