Huge Loss For Free Speech In Europe: Human Rights Court Says Sites Liable For User Comments

from the this-is-big-and-dangerous dept

Last year we wrote about a very dangerous case going to the European Court of Human Rights: Delfi AS v. Estonia, which threatened free expression across Europe. Today, the ruling came out and it's a disaster. In short, websites can be declared liable for things people post in comments. As we explained last year, the details of the case were absolutely crazy. The court had found that even if a website took down comments after people complained, it could still be held liable because it should have anticipated bad comments in the first place. Seriously. In this case, the website had published what everyone agrees was a "balanced" article about "a matter of public interest" but that the website publisher should have known that people would post nasty comments, and therefore, even though it automated a system to remove comments that people complained about, it was still liable for the complaints.

The European Court of Human Rights agreed to rehear the case, and we hoped for a better outcome this time around -- but those hopes have been dashed. The ruling is terrible through and through. First off, it insists that the comments on the news story were clearly "hate speech" and that, as such, "did not require any linguistic or legal analysis since the remarks were on their face manifestly unlawful." To the court, this means that it's obvious such comments should have been censored straight out. That's troubling for a whole host of reasons at the outset, and highlights the problematic views of expressive freedom in Europe. Even worse, however, the Court then notes that freedom of expression is "interfered with" by this ruling, but it doesn't seem to care -- saying that it is deemed "necessary in a democratic society."

Think about that for a second.

The Court tries to play down the impact of this ruling, by saying it doesn't apply to any open forum, but does apply here because Delfi was a giant news portal, and thus (1) had the ability to check with lawyers about this and (2) was publishing the story and opening it up for comments.

The rest of the ruling is... horrific. It keeps going back to this "hate speech" v. "free speech" dichotomy as if it's obvious, and even tries to balance the "right to protection of reputation" against the right of freedom of expression. In other words, it's the kind of ridiculous ruling that will make true free expression advocates scream.
When examining whether there is a need for an interference with freedom of expression in a democratic society in the interests of the “protection of the reputation or rights of others”, the Court may be required to ascertain whether the domestic authorities have struck a fair balance when protecting two values guaranteed by the Convention which may come into conflict with each other in certain cases, namely on the one hand freedom of expression protected by Article 10, and on the other the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8
And the court insists that the two things -- reputation protection and free speech "deserve equal respect." That's bullshit, frankly. The whole concept of a right to a reputation makes no sense at all. Your reputation is based on what people think of you. You have no control over what other people think. You can certainly control your own actions, but what people think of you?

The court sets up a series of areas to explore in determining if Defli should be held liable for those comments. In the US, thanks to Section 230 of the CDA, we already know the answer here would be "hell no." But without a Section 230 in Europe -- and with the bizarre ideas mentioned above -- things get tricky quickly. So even though the court readily agrees that the article Defli published "was a balanced one, contained no offensive language and gave rise to no arguments about unlawful statements" it still puts the liability on Delfi. Because the site wanted comments. It actually argues that because Delfi is a professional site and thus comments convey economic advantage, Delfi is liable:
As regards the context of the comments, the Court accepts that the news article about the ferry company, published on the Delfi news portal, was a balanced one, contained no offensive language and gave rise to no arguments about unlawful statements in the domestic proceedings. The Court is aware that even such a balanced article on a seemingly neutral topic may provoke fierce discussions on the Internet. Furthermore, it attaches particular weight, in this context, to the nature of the Delfi news portal. It reiterates that Delfi was a professionally managed Internet news portal run on a commercial basis which sought to attract a large number of comments on news articles published by it. The Court observes that the Supreme Court explicitly referred to the fact that the applicant company had integrated the comment environment into its news portal, inviting visitors to the website to complement the news with their own judgments and opinions (comments). According to the findings of the Supreme Court, in the comment environment, the applicant company actively called for comments on the news items appearing on the portal. The number of visits to the applicant company’s portal depended on the number of comments; the revenue earned from advertisements published on the portal, in turn, depended on the number of visits. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the applicant company had an economic interest in the posting of comments. In the view of the Supreme Court, the fact that the applicant company was not the writer of the comments did not mean that it had no control over the comment environment...
Also? Having "rules" posted for comments somehow increases the site's liability, rather than lessens it as any sane person would expect:
The Court also notes in this regard that the “Rules of comment” on the Delfi website stated that the applicant company prohibited the posting of comments that were without substance and/or off-topic, were contrary to good practice, contained threats, insults, obscene expressions or vulgarities, or incited hostility, violence or illegal activities. Such comments could be removed and their authors’ ability to post comments could be restricted. Furthermore, the actual authors of the comments could not modify or delete their comments once they were posted on the applicant company’s news portal – only the applicant company had the technical means to do this. In the light of the above and the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the Court agrees with the Chamber’s finding that the applicant company must be considered to have exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal.
Yes, that's right. They get in more trouble for posting rules saying behave. It's incredible.

The next key finding: because commenters are anonymous and anonymity is important -- and because it's difficult to identify anonymous commenters -- well, fuck it, just put the liability on the site instead. That really does seem to be the reasoning:
According to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the present case, the injured person had the choice of bringing a claim against the applicant company or the authors of the comments. The Court considers that the uncertain effectiveness of measures allowing the identity of the authors of the comments to be established, coupled with the lack of instruments put in place by the applicant company for the same purpose with a view to making it possible for a victim of hate speech to effectively bring a claim against the authors of the comments, are factors that support a finding that the Supreme Court based its judgment on relevant and sufficient grounds. The Court also refers, in this context, to the Krone Verlag (no. 4) judgment, where it found that shifting the risk of the defamed person obtaining redress in defamation proceedings to the media company, which was usually in a better financial position than the defamer, was not as such a disproportionate interference with the media company’s right to freedom of expression....
Further on the question of liability, the court finds that because Delfi's filter wasn't good enough, that exposes it to more liability. I wish I were making this up.
Thus, the Court notes that the applicant company cannot be said to have wholly neglected its duty to avoid causing harm to third parties. Nevertheless, and more importantly, the automatic word-based filter used by the applicant company failed to filter out odious hate speech and speech inciting violence posted by readers and thus limited its ability to expeditiously remove the offending comments. The Court reiterates that the majority of the words and expressions in question did not include sophisticated metaphors or contain hidden meanings or subtle threats. They were manifest expressions of hatred and blatant threats to the physical integrity of L. Thus, even if the automatic word-based filter may have been useful in some instances, the facts of the present case demonstrate that it was insufficient for detecting comments whose content did not constitute protected speech under Article 10 of the Convention.... The Court notes that as a consequence of this failure of the filtering mechanism, such clearly unlawful comments remained online for six weeks....
Then the court says that because the "victims" of "hate speech" can't police the interwebs, clearly it should be the big companies' responsibility instead:
Moreover, depending on the circumstances, there may be no identifiable individual victim, for example in some cases of hate speech directed against a group of persons or speech directly inciting violence of the type manifested in several of the comments in the present case. In cases where an individual victim exists, he or she may be prevented from notifying an Internet service provider of the alleged violation of his or her rights. The Court attaches weight to the consideration that the ability of a potential victim of hate speech to continuously monitor the Internet is more limited than the ability of a large commercial Internet news portal to prevent or rapidly remove such comments.
Finally, the court says that since the company has stayed in business and is still publishing, despite the earlier ruling, it proves that this ruling is no big deal for free speech.
The Court also observes that it does not appear that the applicant company had to change its business model as a result of the domestic proceedings. According to the information available, the Delfi news portal has continued to be one of Estonia’s largest Internet publications and by far the most popular for posting comments, the number of which has continued to increase. Anonymous comments – now existing alongside the possibility of posting registered comments, which are displayed to readers first – are still predominant and the applicant company has set up a team of moderators carrying out follow-up moderation of comments posted on the portal (see paragraphs 32 and 83 above). In these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that the interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression was disproportionate on that account either.
The ruling is about as bad as you can imagine. It is absolutely going to chill free expression across Europe. Things are a bit confusing because the EU Court of Justice has actually been much more concerned about issues of intermediary liability, and this ruling contradicts some of those rulings, but since the two courts are separate and not even part of the same system, it's not clear what jurisdiction prevails. It is quite likely, however, that many will seize upon this European Court of Human Rights ruling to go after many websites that allow comments and free expression in an attempt to block it. It is going to force many sites to either shut down open comments, curtail forums or moderate them much more seriously.

For a Europe that is supposedly trying to build up a bigger internet industry, this ruling is a complete disaster, considering just how much internet innovation is based on enabling and allowing free expression.

There is a dissenting opinion from two judges on the court, who note the "collateral censorship" that is likely to occur out of all of this.
In this judgment the Court has approved a liability system that imposes a requirement of constructive knowledge on active Internet intermediaries (that is, hosts who provide their own content and open their intermediary services for third parties to comment on that content). We find the potential consequences of this standard troubling. The consequences are easy to foresee. For the sake of preventing defamation of all kinds, and perhaps all “illegal” activities, all comments will have to be monitored from the moment they are posted. As a consequence, active intermediaries and blog operators will have considerable incentives to discontinue offering a comments feature, and the fear of liability may lead to additional self-censorship by operators. This is an invitation to self-censorship at its worst.
It further notes how this works -- in such a simple manner it's disturbing that the court didn't get it:
Governments may not always be directly censoring expression, but by putting pressure and imposing liability on those who control the technological infrastructure (ISPs, etc.), they create an environment in which collateral or private-party censorship is the inevitable result. Collateral censorship “occurs when the state holds one private party A liable for the speech of another private party B, and A has the power to block, censor, or otherwise control access to B’s speech”. Because A is liable for someone else’s speech, A has strong incentives to over-censor, to limit access, and to deny B’s ability to communicate using the platform that A controls. In effect, the fear of liability causes A to impose prior restraints on B’s speech and to stifle even protected speech. “What looks like a problem from the standpoint of free expression ... may look like an opportunity from the standpoint of governments that cannot easily locate anonymous speakers and want to ensure that harmful or illegal speech does not propagate.” These technological tools for reviewing content before it is communicated online lead (among other things) to: deliberate overbreadth; limited procedural protections (the action is taken outside the context of a trial); and shifting of the burden of error costs (the entity in charge of filtering will err on the side of protecting its own liability, rather than protecting freedom of expression).
It's disappointing they were unable to convince their colleagues on this issue. This ruling is going to cause serious problems in Europe.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 11:45am

    What was the article about? The only things that gets the blunt side of the lawhammer are things releated to jews. Any bad word about Israel or any jewish person and its hatespeech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:52pm

      Re:

      It was about a company cancelling an ice road across a frozen lake in Estonia. Feel better now?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re:

        Really? How does that lead to hate speech?!?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The tribal nature of politics has a lot to do with it. Somebody belonging to one tribe made a decision that upset a member of a different tribe, and the insults start to fly.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          JEDIDIAH, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:59pm

          ...a troll for every occasion.

          Random nonsense is likely to get injected into any topic on the Internet. Get enough random people together and you will have plenty of idiots. That's what moderation and killfiles are for.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      It's pretty sad how quickly forgotten is Charlie Hebdo and their crusade for freedom of speech. Now we're all just going back to equating Jews with Zionists?

      Not me. Seig heil.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:57pm

      There are no cats in America

      > What was the article about? The only things that gets the blunt side of the lawhammer are things releated to jews. Any bad word about Israel or any jewish person and its hatespeech.

      This is Europe. They're fine with anti-semitism.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AJ, 16 Jun 2015 @ 4:33pm

      Re:

      People started to realize that 911 attack and all middle east wars were/are the work of Israel. Not only recent history but also the world war II 6 millions was also a hoax. They want to continue the same path which makes it far more dangerous for the world of Zionism to exist.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 3:38am

      Re:

      Sometimes even arguing with a person of Jewish descent, on well... anything at all (weather, physics, chemistry, favorite sports team, etc.) can get you labeled as antisemitic.

      You really have to be extra careful what you say around people of Jewish descent especially if they're scientists or reporters.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 6:47am

        Re: Re:

        One day on a bus in Nazi Germany, a soldier was blaming everything on the Jews. Another man piped up and said, "Yeah, and the cyclists."

        The soldier asked, "Why the cyclists?"

        "Why the Jews?"

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 6:58am

        Ummm, what?

        I suspect that you personally need to be careful arguing around any educated person.

        If you are using anti-Semitic terms in everyday conversation, it's clearly not the person you're talking to who has the problem. I'm Jewish, and not once have I ever thought someone was anti-Semitic due to their opinions on anything that didn't relate to religion. This doesn't mean that racists can't also discuss physics* or the weather- but it's not their opinions on physics or weather that make them racists.


        *Physics is a bad example as most racists are too uneducated or too dumb to hold a meaningful conversation about it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 8:56am

        Re: Re:

        "Sometimes even arguing with a person of Jewish descent, on well... anything at all (weather, physics, chemistry, favorite sports team, etc.) can get you labeled as antisemitic."

        This is the purest form of BS I have seen today. I've had plenty of arguments with Jewish folks (mostly scientists), and never once has anyone slapped an antisemitic label on me.

        Probably because their ancestry and/or religion was never a component of any of the arguments.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:29pm

        Re: Re:

        You really have to be extra careful what you say around people of Jewish descent especially if they're scientists or reporters.

        Sounds kind of anti-semitic.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 11:47am

    This is just the rotten cherry on top of a huge pile of shit that has been building all over the world. We are fast approaching totalitarianism everywhere. Disguised yes but totalitarianism. You can't have strong dissenting opinions from the established norm or you are a radical, a terrorist, an extremist. Just imagine a few key actors from the past in the environment of today. Or rather we don't need to imagine since them too suffered from the same maladies. Still, the current environment is rapidly becoming much worse because at the same time there's a generalized crackdown onto the open, spreading nature of the internet (that would have greatly helped such past characters) and at the same time technology and surveillance are advancing in an alarming pace. Technology per se is not an issue but the use of such technology to slash free expression and privacy that were conquered not long ago is simply terrifying.

    Are we witnessing the beginning of some sort of ne Dark Ages?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:22pm

      Re:

      Slow moving governments are finally getting around to reacting to the freedom the internet has given everyone in the world, and the end result will be to lock it all down, sanitize everything, and remove all the freedoms that were briefly given to the people. It's all over.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:46pm

        They can embrace and utilize the net, or make it criminal, and make everyone criminals.

        Because I'm pretty sure that the post-millennial generations are going to tolerate having the internet taken away, and playing around with taboo topics and media (whether goatse or child porn or neo-nazi propaganda or obvious hate-speech) is a thing they do the way kids used to play around with matchsticks.

        And when they can poke a thing and have big governments stomp around and destroy things because of it, that passes as funny (hence SWATting isn't going away anytime soon).

        So, no. The Internet is going to win out on this one in the long game. The difference is whether we have to go through a prohibition phase in which providers become the new mafia.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:47pm

          Gaaah! Pre-coffee posting.

          ...I'm pretty sure that the post-millennial generations are not going to tolerate having the internet taken away...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:57pm

          Re: They can embrace and utilize the net, or make it criminal, and make everyone criminals.

          Because I'm pretty sure that the post-millennial generations are going to tolerate having the internet taken away...

          As long as they've still got social sites and a party to go to this weekend they won't give a flying flip.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:08pm

            Re: Re: They can embrace and utilize the net, or make it criminal, and make everyone criminals.

            Its the social sites that are most threatened by this ruling, as they only have user generated content, and adverts. However without the user generated content they get no eyeballs for the adverts.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:13pm

              Re: Re: Re: They can embrace and utilize the net, or make it criminal, and make everyone criminals.

              Its the social sites that are most threatened by this ruling, as they only have user generated content, and adverts.

              Most are not based in Europe.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 5:10pm

                Good little drones

                ...if our administrators could only separate the terrorists from the good-little-drones and keep the good-little-drones happy and fed.

                But as it is, our plutocrats can't see past their own greed to aim for fair governance. (It might be that small-town instinct that does this where we just don't regard people outside our top 50-or-so facebook friends as real people with real needs).

                Every good-little-drone is sooner or later going to be starving or require medical attention or dragged in by the police on trumped charges -- or they'll know someone in such a plight -- and will become less good and less droney.

                And this process accellerates until there are guillotines and Robespeare.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 4:16pm

            How it will go down...

            Plenty of end users are based in Europe.

            If we're lucky, social network sites will tell the EU authorities to GFY, and will protect the privacy of their assets. (Google was flip-flopping on this for a while but seems to have decided ultimately to side with their end-users.)

            Then the independent states will decide if they're just going to block those sites and play ISP whack-a-mole.

            I suspect the intelligence institutions will try to hack the social networks and we'll go through a period deciding whether that's legally admissable. And then the networks will get their encryption and security up to speed.

            And in the meantime, by escalating the criminality of dissenting speech or offensive speech, it will become on par with the criminality of child porn, and traffickers of such porn will experience a golden age, as all users protect their identities with the same vigilence as do Anarchists, Lunatics and Terrorists.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:28pm

          Re: They can embrace and utilize the net, or make it criminal, and make everyone criminals.

          Oh yes, people will be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't try to make money at it.

          Obviously it's easier (and more lucrative) for goverments to blame the businesses for their user's behavior and keep them in line than it is to go after the supposedly anonymous users themselves.

          That's the future that's being advocated here.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:57pm

      Re:

      going to be either large scale revolts in the next decade or small scale revolutions. Either way I suspect most of us that post on this site will die trying to defend what we believe in from an oppressive state no matter where we live.

      Good little drones never question what their leadership does. Only bad people and terrorists use sites like this that show fault in the perfect leaders.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 11:48am

    And rulings like this demonstrate why there aren't many innovative tech based startups in the UK.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 11:56am

      Re:

      You do know that a lot of gaming studios are based in the UK. Wikipedia link Head over to Berkshire in the UK to find a lot of tech companies, sort of like the UK's Silicon Valley.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jeremy2020 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:02pm

        Re: Re:

        Most of those aren't "based" there. They're studios or offshoots. It is much easier to close down a studio and move them elsewhere than the "head office". Of course, since Canada and Europe think their laws apply globally...that may not help.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Richard (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Most of those aren't "based" there. They're studios or offshoots.

          Rubbish.

          They may have been taken over by the big players with oversees head offices - but the studios all started as independents in the UK. EG Core (Tomb Raider) Rare, Bulfrog, LionHead etc etc.

          If they got shut down then the founders would just start up here as independents again. (As Peter Molyneux has done more than once already.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Of course, since Canada and Europe think their laws apply globally ...

          Gee, where've I heard that (*cough*Kim Dotcom*cough*) before? Yeah, Canada and Europe are certainly the worst offenders there.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 8:50pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ya like Canada and Europe thought that first.

          Think before you type something next time moron.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:01pm

        Re: Re:

        He said innovative tech...

        I don't think game 'designers' using 3rd party 3d api's count as innovative in the tech arena.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Richard (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't think game 'designers' using 3rd party 3d api's count as innovative in the tech arena.

          You don't know how the industry works do you - the studios mostly create their own api infrastructure.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:10pm

        Re: Re:

        True but anything that has gotten big seems to only come out of the US, China, or Japan

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Richard (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          anything that has gotten big seems to only come out of the US, China, or Japan

          It may seem that way to a blinkered American but it is not true.

          The web came from a Brit working in CERN in Geneva and the processor in your smartphone was almost certainly designed in Cambridge UK.

          The Computer as we know it invented by Babbage, Turing, Newman (Max not Johnny Von), Flowers and Kilburn. All Brits.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Shadow Firebird, 16 Jun 2015 @ 11:52am

    US Free Speech Model

    …this ruling is a powerful argument for it.

    I usually think of the US model as weaker - we keep getting told that the 1st amendment doen't apply to to private fora like a website. But clearly it's not that simple.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:04pm

      Re: US Free Speech Model

      It's all about who is doing the regulating. Plus, you will still have plenty of people that will stand up for the concept of free speech in general even if there are plenty of corporate toadies willing to make excuses for abusive corporations.

      I may not agree with a particular forum that enforces a particular brand of group think but that's far less harmful than a broad government mandate.

      With corporate censorship you are still left with a diverse range of choices.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      GonzoI, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:55pm

      Re: US Free Speech Model

      The 1st Amendment doesn't give you rights to post to a private website or in any way limit the owner of that website from restricting or eliminating your ability to exercise your free speech through that medium. That is NOT the same as saying it doesn't apply. The government has zero authority to prevent what you might say there. Once you've said it, though, the effect of what you've said gets into the "yelling fire in a theater" arguments.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 11:55am

    Chip.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeremy2020 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 11:59am

    So all forums/comments/social media was basically just banned in Europe because you should *know* people will post mean things.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      GonzoI, 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:06pm

      Re:

      Open forums/comments/social media, yes. Moderated would still be allowed, as you could individually censor each comment or post if you managed to find some model where that would be viable. Limiting to verified accounts with a real identity established would also be allowed, as it would allow the liability to go to the commenter in this insane legal ruling's words. I believe what you might end up seeing would be professional commentary while the public is silenced. A farce of freedom George Orwell's characters would have found familiar.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Duke (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 1:27am

      Re:

      The ruling explicitly excludes forums and social media, and most comment sites.

      Secondly, nothing was banned. The ECtHR didn't say that sites were liable for comments. They said that it wasn't a disproportionate interference with a site's freedom of expression in this specific case for this specific site to be liable for these specific comments to the extent they were found liable.

      They still relied on a lot of the findings of law of the Estonian Supreme Court; including that the EU's limitations on liability didn't apply (if they did, it would be a different story).

      This ruling isn't the end of the world. If it had gone the other way it would have been a great boost to Internet comments etc., but all this ruling does is maintain the status quo, giving national governments the option, in extreme circumstances, of imposing liability on sites for user comments.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 20 Jun 2015 @ 8:13pm

      Re:

      If the site owner is liable for the content of comments even if they delete troublesome ones, the solution is obvious:

      Get on every EU government website that has any ability to post comments, upload files or chat. Make Holocaust-denying comments via those mechanisms.

      After the EU government is arrested for the crime, the people will have to elect a fresh one that will, hopefully be less corrupt and out of touch with reality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:02pm

    Clearly

    the judges should be liable for any threats or hate speech uttered in their courts, right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Trelose (profile), 19 Jun 2015 @ 7:08pm

      Re: Clearly

      Nah, since it affects them, they won't do a dang thing about it. But it would demonstrate to them quite effectively how idiotic their decision is.

      "Your honor, he uttered a threat!"
      "So? I can't help it!"
      "But you were supposed to anticipate that someone would threaten me, so I'm holding you liable for his actions!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:03pm

    Anyone ever notice, regardless where in the world a person is, the more freedoms a person has to speak their minds, the more governments control that speech?

    Democratic countries seem to be the worst, all the while pointing fingers how Communism is the worst. One of these days, someone will sit down and realize, "Hey, we're acting just like they are! Maybe we should scale back our own personal fears."

    On second though, in looking at past history, this is obviously a task far too complicated for an intelligent species.

    Oh dear! This post would likely put Techdirt in the line of fire... if it weren't in the US.

    For now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:34pm

      Re:

      Anyone ever notice, regardless where in the world a person is, the more freedoms a person has to speak their minds, the more governments control that speech?

      No, because that's a contradiction in terms. If government controls speech, that means the people don't have freedom to speak their minds.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:49pm

        Re: Re:

        True. But Violynne does circle around a strange but long recognized sociological phenomenon: that highly oppressed societies tend to have a more actual free exchange of opinion and ideas than less oppressed ones. It's just done in secret.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Nothing new about teh internets!, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:06pm

    "exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal"

    Yes. The site has control, it's the publisher. Just like newspapers, an editor scans letter before priting. Nothing is really new for teh internets, see?

    Neither is Techdirt an impartial platform with 230 protection.

    As this comment may prove when "Held for Moderation".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:25pm

      If you can't tell the difference between a newspaper and a website, you have no business comparing the two

      Tell you what, if you think it's so easy, why don't you offer your services pre-screening all comments and user submissions on the various sites then?

      I'm sure a site like Youtube for example would be a breeze for you to keep clear of any possibly illegal or potentially illegal content. I mean, there's only multiple day's worth of videos uploaded on an hourly basis, and probably several millions of comments left during the same period, so it should be easy as can be to moderate all of that, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rikuo, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:31pm

      Re: "exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal"

      Wait...Techdirt doesn't have 230 protections? But TD is based in the US, where Section 230 applies.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:36pm

        Re: Re: "exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal"

        Wait...Techdirt doesn't have 230 protections? But TD is based in the US, where Section 230 applies.

        He's suggesting that since TD has a spam filter, they've given up their 230 protections. So now you know what a waste of time it is to argue with him. :-)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: "exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal"

          He's suggesting that since TD has a spam filter, they've given up their 230 protections.

          Yeah, he also thinks that Techdirt "censors" him because the spam filter is probably setup to blacklist IP addresses that get huge amounts of "report" clicks.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:51pm

      What's good for the goose

      How did I miss it...

      Anyway, if you support the idea that sites have an obligation to moderate their comments('Just like newspapers'), and/or should be held accountable for comments that their users post, then you not only deserve to have every single one of your comments 'Held for moderation', you have to be a hypocrite to complain when they are.

      Clearly the site needs to check to make sure your comments don't have any content that could get TD in legal hot water, and as a result all of them need to be checked before they are posted publicly. That this might take a while at times is just part of the system, an expected result given the amount of comments they need to wade through.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:50pm

        Re: What's good for the goose

        And those that complain the loudest on this site about having to put up with their comments being held for moderation are the ones who complain about having their comments censored and hidden by users of this site even though those comments that are hidden are done so because they are either spam, abusive or trollish and should be moderated as this site would run into trouble with this courts ruling should this site fall under the EU jurisdiction.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:09pm

          Re: Re: What's good for the goose

          Yup, gotta love those double standards.

          "Sites should be responsible for the comments made by those that use them, with objectionable comments barred from being posted!" one minute, and "Holding (my) comments for moderation, and/or allowing people to hide objectionable comments is censorship and persecution of the highest order!" the next.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dan (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:58pm

      Re: "exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal"

      Contrary to your apparent belief, neither impartiality nor lack of editorial control is required for section 230 immunity to apply.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 7:04pm

      Re: "exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal"

      Yeah, a website hosted on the internet where anyone can instantly post comments is *totally* the same as a newspaper!

      You're an idiot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:09pm

    War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

    And free speech must be suppressed in a democracy. It's obvious.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:12pm

    I am now going to head over to the comments section on their government website and post some "hate speech". A few of you internet friends can complain about the "hate speech" and then the government will be held liable. It would be even better if the government site was related to some trade deal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jasmine Charter, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:16pm

    It's Europeans... what do you expect?

    They're Europeans, democracy died along time ago. Europe is now a bunch of fascist socialists.

    It's a shame... so many people died fighting to keep Europe democratic, and they end up becoming the thing they hated - or purported to hate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:29pm

      Re: It's Europeans... what do you expect?

      They were really fighting over what they were to become, just who the leaders would be. The whole "fighting for freedom" bit was just to keep the soldiers fighting willing to die. Suckers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 9:00am

        Re: Re: It's Europeans... what do you expect?

        Every soldier has fought to defend the values they hold dear. The people who have sent those soldiers have always had different purposes.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:38pm

      Re: It's Europeans... what do you expect?

      "..fascist socialists"?

      Is the definition of this something that can only be described by quantum mechanics?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:52pm

      Re: It's Europeans... what do you expect?

      methinks all those Nazi scientists and other military officials were integrated too well into the allies after the war ended.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:26pm

      Re: It's Europeans... what do you expect?

      "socialists"

      Yeah I know what you mean. All those damn Europeans helping people in need. Hate those guys right? If you see someone starving let her starve to death like a true capitalist should be doing!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ian, 17 Jun 2015 @ 2:36am

      Re: It's Europeans... what do you expect?

      Democracy has never existed in Europe, or elsewhere for that matter. CAn't have the peasants deciding what's best for them!
      I assume you may be in the US? If so, how is that "free speech" thing going over there? What with protests having stick to predetermined "free speech zones"! In other words, you have the freedom to agree with the government or STFU.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:38pm

        Re: Re: It's Europeans... what do you expect?

        I assume you may be in the US? If so, how is that "free speech" thing going over there?

        From what I've read, it's going better than it is in Europe.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:19pm

    Impressive

    They absolutely crushed any possible chance for tech companies who allow customer interaction on their sites and services to operate in the EU. All in a single ruling. That takes some real dedication to eliminating free speech, they must be so very proud.

    Unless this gets overturned like, immediately, the fallout over this ruling is going to be huge.

    Comments on sites? Eliminated.
    Twitter? Not any more.
    Youtube(comments and videos)? 'Not available in your area'.

    Basically any site that allows user submitted content can no longer operate in the EU, as as this ruling makes it far too legally dicey to do so, so they either completely remove the ability for people to submit their own content(utterly crippling certain services), or they block anyone from the EU from interacting with their services in any real meaningful way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 5:51pm

      Frankly, I can't imagine this NOT getting overturned quickly...wait... There it is.

      Given the Right to be forgotten hasn't been overturned yet. I guess we're going to have to see all the forum hosts get raided by Antiterrorismo Pronto Impiego (Do they do that in Europe?) and shut down a la MegaUpload.

      After that, yeah, all the sites will move to offshore hosting services and blocked regionally (or not) until it's decided how stupid and unenforceable this is.

      Speaking of the RTBF thing, I take that people in Europe just TOR their way out of Europe to do their Google searches on forgetees, yes?

      So what was exactly accomplished with that exercise?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 7:21pm

        Re: Frankly, I can't imagine this NOT getting overturned quickly...wait... There it is.

        Speaking of the RTBF thing, I take that people in Europe just TOR their way out of Europe to do their Google searches on forgetees, yes? So what was exactly accomplished with that exercise?

        Snowden says get your friends using tor, so just be glad the opposition is so stupid they're doing our work for us.

        Booting from Tails Linux on a USB key will even use i2p instead of tor.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Klaus, 17 Jun 2015 @ 2:27am

        Re: Frankly, I can't imagine this NOT getting overturned quickly...wait... There it is.

        "I take it that people in Europe just TOR their way out of Europe..."

        Yep. Got to. That or VPN. Europe/UK is becoming toxic. I think my endpoint is somewhere in the middle east...

        /sad humour

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:37pm

    Cameron

    Huh - maybe David Cameron's decision to withdraw from the jurisdiction of this court isn't so bad as I thought it was!

    It's an ill wind...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:55pm

      Re: Cameron

      so THAT's why one of the judges submitted a 3-page concurrence insulting the English legal system. (p. 65-67)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OldMugwump (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Unless this gets overturned like, immediately, the fallout over this ruling is going to be huge.

    I hope you're right and that's how people handle it - 'Not available in your area'.

    That's the only way to turn the EU around and make them wake up to what they've done.

    Sometimes things have to get worse before anybody bothers to make them better. Let's hope they just got bad enough.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Max (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:43pm

    Well, the highly honorable wigs involved are welcome to dine on kitty litter for the rest of their lives. In the mean time, who's up for coding a browser plugin that pushes out and pulls in comments from a distributed P2P blockchain simply based on the website's URL...? C'mon, you know it's the right thing to do...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:45pm

    HUH?

    AND WHO can hold a politician to his words?? Promises?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:47pm

    now we watch and see which organizations rush to have themselves exempted from such liabilities while parroting the party line that this is needed

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 12:53pm

    How can we know what hateful speech is, if we never see it? And how can we explore and articulate our responses to vile attitudes, if such is prohibited from public discourse?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:00pm

    I can only recommend actually reading the ruling, in particular the background of the case, which is laid out in nice detail in the embedded document.

    There is literally nothing "huge" about this ruling. Except the click-bait mountain Mike has made out of yet another molehill.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:04pm

      Re:

      nice use of 'literally.' It adds flair and an air of authority.

      Just wondering, do you have any content to add to your 'comment' or is it just hate speech?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      Its funny how Mike is fighting for your right to troll his site, and you are arguing against your right to spam this site with your hate speech.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 7:05pm

      Re:

      Wow, what a convincing argument you've detailed!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 7:45pm

        Re: Re:

        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-court-decision-websites-are-liable-for-use rs-comments-2/

        Over at ars is a contrasting article about how the decision means little.

        "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."

        Mike seems to be ...
        a) Jumping to conclusions, and
        b) Looking at things, the way Americans always do, from a very amerocentric viewpoint. Using US laws to frame things, regardless that those laws don't apply overseas.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 8:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Irony alert - it's written by a Techdirter.
          What a difference editorial control makes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 10:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Looking at things, the way Americans always do, from a very amerocentric viewpoint. Using US laws to frame things, regardless that those laws don't apply overseas."

          It is interesting the jealousy you expound. Americans (I presume you mean residents of the United States of America because America has Northern, Southern, and Central parts) have rights that others don't have, at least not stated in the same way as the US states theirs. That we wish those same rights be bestowed upon everyone else in the world is not such a terrible thing.

          Now, if you wish to discuss how the US is currently going about, ahem, protecting those rights, well there have been plenty of discussions here on Techdirt about atrocities committed by various components of government and the private sector. Can we do better for ourselves? Working on it. Should our own failings keep us from wishing such rights on others? Not a chance.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 10:41pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's not about wishing things for others, it's a cultural myopia.
            Rather than take the time to educate yourselves on the laws and customs of other countries, instead you discuss their issues as if they were your own.

            I actually have more rights where I live than you do, and free health care and..., so it's not about jealousy. It's a frustration born from reading article after article here where x violates India's net Neutrality, where y violates Croatias 1st amendment rights etc.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          G Thompson (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wow you can cut&paste but cannot read the actual tl;dr summary at the top of the article (under the title and above the byline) that Glyn writes.

          The ruling is likely to be influential on EU courts' thinking in future.

          It seems you have no idea how courts are influenced by other court decisions, especially a decision by a major court like this both in the EU, US, Oceania etc. And like most people who stick there heads in the sand you are cherry picking your quotes.

          PS: I'm Aussie so calling me US-Centric want wash either.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The key word is 'likely', the article reads as if it's certain, and the comments read as if it has already happened.

            Quotes, by their very nature are cherry picked.

            PS: I'm a New Zealander so I'll call you neighbour.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 7:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It's easier to clean a scratch than it is to amputate a gangrenous limb. Most of the time a little cut'll heal fine on its own, but it's occasionally useful to have a hypochondriac friend say "you might want to put some Neosporin on that."

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 11:01am

          A very amerocentric viewpoint

          Yeah, over here we also have rulings that the courts try to frame as very narrowly applicable and yet the precedent it sets spreads outward like a kudzu burrowing into old brickwork.

          The most recent big example was the Hobby Lobby ruling, which has opened up a bevy of court cases from other corporations who have religious beliefs that prevent them from following US law.

          But my favorite is the Al Capone case that set the precedent fuck the law if you're jackass and we don't like you which has become the groundwork of most criminal cases in the new millennium.

          Europe has examples of shitty ruling serving as precedent running back to the fourteenth century, but I'm less familiar with them.

          Maybe we Amerocentricists know what we're talking about.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:03pm

    What others think...

    "The whole concept of a right to a reputation makes no sense at all."

    A little off the rails with that one. Courts have recognized defamation torts, i.e., libel and slander, for a very long time.

    I get that the ruling in this case is entirely disturbing, but hyperbole serves only to weaken your argument.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:48pm

      Re: What others think...

      You believe conflating the positive right to a reputation to the negative penalization of lies and untruths is what the argument's about? I smell a bad lawyer in the house.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:09pm

        It gets even better...

        Wasn't one problem with this case the fact that no one could actually identify a victim? There was no one identified that would have the standing to sue this website for defamation.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:05pm

      Re: What others think...

      A little off the rails with that one. Courts have recognized defamation torts, i.e., libel and slander, for a very long time.

      In the US, opinions and true statements of fact do not count for defamation, no matter the damage done to one's "reputation". Not so in Europe.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:06am

      Re: What others think...

      No defamation is an absolutely different beast then "right of reputation".

      The right of reputation is specifically designed to bypass defamation defenses so that people cannot voice there opinions or present factual evidence of proven past events that the person did and does not want anyone to remember. It's a tool to rewrite history for those who have the wherewithal (money, power, influence) and cannot stand that the peons now have a platform to remember things by.

      It is NOT about defamation and has no bearing on the histrionics of defamation actions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jigsy, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:04pm

    [ This comment cannot be viewed due to disapproval by the European Human Rights Court. Sorry about that. :/ ]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:05pm

    how will they deal with sites like reddit and 4chan. since eu countries have started claiming that their internet laws apply globally. these sits are basically comment aggregators. they exist specifically to drive visitor comments. and if they think g-rated comments that pop up on a newsite is hate speach then they will get a huge kick out of the r/x rated stuff on these types of sites.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      Seems out of their jurisdiction. They might just block them if they are serious.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:08pm

        Re: Re:

        Seems out of their jurisdiction.

        You haven't heard about their world-wide jurisdiction?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's the USA. Dont forget Megaupload based in Hong Kong shut down by the US if you need an example. At least the EU just makes laws and doesn't shut down whole companies.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:41pm

      Re:

      simple make them illegal. In their minds the people that use those sites are all criminals anyway they cannot currently charge them under existing laws.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Duke (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 1:37am

      Re:

      how will they deal with sites like reddit and 4chan.
      They won't. This ruling was very clear that sites like reddit and 4chan were a different matter. It is a very narrow ruling. Secondly, this ruling doesn't make anything illegal, and doesn't make anyone liable for anything.

      All the ECtHR did (or can do) was say that it wasn't a disproportionate interference in this specific case for this site to be found liable for these comments in the way it was. And it came to this conclusion based on a whole host of specific factors - including some assumed from the Estonian Supreme Court's decision.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:35pm

    Mass Extinction Event

    It appears the only way for EU websites to allow comments under this ruling will be to hire lawyers to preview all comments prior to posting. Not just any lawyers either. They must be politically correct lawyers who undergo constant training as to what is politically correct, today. Who's gonna want that job?

    Then one has to think about what tests those politically correct lawyers are going to apply, and how one might keep them applicable in an ever changing environment where the rush to the middle may very well become an Olympic event (assuming the IOC doesn't crash the concept with trademark violations).

    Given the above, any profitability of any organization that allows comments will quickly go the way of extinct species, and that may well be the expected outcome of the Human Rights Court, who forgot about human rights, except when the 'human' in question is actually a corporation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:10pm

      Re: Mass Extinction Event

      It appears the only way for EU websites to allow comments under this ruling will be to hire lawyers to preview all comments prior to posting.

      A lawyer will just tell you that the safest course is to just not allow comments at all.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:48pm

        Re: Re: Mass Extinction Event

        And? Comments on websites aren't necessary for the web to be functional and useful.

        Btw, before the Internet arrived, the sun still rose and set every day.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: Mass Extinction Event

          And cars worked fine without such trifles as shocks, airbags, radios, heating/air-conditioning, engines capable of allowing the car to move faster than a horse could run... guess all of those could be tossed and we'd be no worse for the wear, right?

          Sure cars might not be as useful if such features were removed, and they certainly wouldn't be as comfortable, but the sun rose and set before we had those features, so I'm sure it'll do the same if they were removed.

          Also, I do find it funny that you seem to be defending the idea that comments could be gotten rid of and nothing of value would be lost... in a comment that would be silenced. Unless of course you yourself believe that you could be barred from commenting, and nothing of value would be lost, in which case I suppose at least you'd be honest rather than a hypocrite.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 7:16pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Mass Extinction Event

            The only thing that would hurt this website from lack of commenters would be traffic.

            Not my problem.

            It wouldn't stop me or anyone else from making jokes about Mike Masnick in some other venue.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 8:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mass Extinction Event

              Yes, of course, traffic, I mean jeesh, what site wants more of that? Clearly less of that would be great.

              So I take it then all your comments can be safely judged to add nothing of value, and can be removed without any issue then? I mean, it's nice of you to admit that your comments add nothing to any discussions, and nothing would be lost if they were silenced, but some of us actually get something out of discussions held on sites like this, so we actually care about the idea that comments could be removed from sites due to keeping them being too legally risky, thanks to some idiot judges.

              Just because you apparently add nothing to, and get nothing from, sites that allow commenting, doesn't mean others don't. If you truly want to back up what seems to be your position, stop posting, as every post you make undercuts the idea that you think nothing of value is added from comments. Either you do believe that you have something to add, or something to gain, from being involved in a site, or you don't, and you're wasting everyone's time including your own.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 1:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mass Extinction Event

                It's telling when the biggest critics of the site are precisely the idiots with nothing to contribute aside from insults.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mass Extinction Event


              It wouldn't stop me or anyone else from making jokes about Mike Masnick in some other venue.


              But not any internet venue of course, if all the comments went away.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: Mass Extinction Event

          "Comments on websites aren't necessary for the web to be functional and useful. "

          Technically true, but an enormous percentage of the value of web sites is the comments.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 1:46pm

    i dont understand what is happening in the EU. one minute you get a ruling like this that makes no sense, then you read the EU is taking Facebook to court over privacy issues. on top of that, the next thing is governments are not only spying on citizens, the courts have told them it is illegal, but do nothing to those governments that ignore the ruling, like the UK has done, but then sets out something like this that is going to cause some mega problems! this seems to be another one of those 'we'll do what we can to help the rich' rulings, like the 'Right to be forgotten'!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bullshit, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:38pm

    Bullshit

    Well, I decided to give TechDirt another try after taking a few months off, and I find that you're STILL a bunch of immature, unprofessional jackasses who absolutely insist on dropping an unnecessary obscenity in an otherwise fine article. Pathetic man-boy shit. Grow the fuck up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PRMan, 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:52pm

      Re: Bullshit

      "dropping an unnecessary obscenity in an otherwise fine article. Pathetic man-boy shit. Grow the fuck up."

      Hypocrite much?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      s2lim, 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:08pm

      Re: Bullshit

      And yet... you're allowed to spew your own filth without consequence.

      It's not about you though, is it?

      Take your moral panic elsewhere, perhaps somewhere where your impulse to comment is corrupted by censorious bastards having like moral fortitude.

      Vengeful idiot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      VonFluffington (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 6:02pm

      Re: Bullshit

      If you aren't trolling than this is some seriously ironc shit right here.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    HegemonicDistortion (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 2:44pm

    What's next?

    What if the "hate speech" commenters sent the comment to the "victim" via an anonymous letter? Is the postal system similarly liable as the website? Will the postal system now have to read every letter to make sure they're not conveying hate speech?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:05pm

      Re: What's next?

      Oh absolutely.

      That's why next on the agenda(after forcing the postal service to open every package and read every letter), is holding the phone companies personally responsible for every call made or message sent via their services, and forcing them to record and go through and pre-screen everything unless they too want to be held accountable should something slip through.

      (I really wish the above was sarcasm, and not just taking the arguments that sites should be held accountable for the comments made by visitors, and applying said arguments elsewhere)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael W, 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:16pm

    Then walls...

    ...then walls should be illegal. In case threatening graffiti be writ thereon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:18pm

    Dare I comment? Free speech will have to be charted. Charted for comedy, parody, irony and derision. Surely all part of the right to comment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Pronounce (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 4:15pm

    The Perfect Ruling to Game the System

    Target a rival's blog with hate speech, and boom they're liable. Absolutely perfect.

    I suppose this ruling was predicted as several sites have dumped commenting.

    It will be a contest to see if EFF or Techdirt outlasts each other by holding onto comments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Oknow, 16 Jun 2015 @ 4:21pm

    The so-called "western democracies" are a slave empire owned by the jews.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 5:40pm

    out_of_the_blue and average_joe just hate it when due process is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 6:16pm

    Profanity and society

    It is interesting times. Profanity has become the way of life for many (including commenters and article writers on this sight.

    What does profanity indicate about the person or with its general acceptance by society, what does it indicate about society?

    Hmmm.

    !). It is a form of stuttering?
    @). It indicates an inability to articulate clearly the conceptual basis for the individual's argument.
    #). It indicates the lack of respect of one individual for another, even though the individual in question does not like being disrespected themselves.
    $). Society no longer expects any reasoned and intelligent discussion about matters at hand.


    Let's see how long the profane take to respond. Starting now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 6:50pm

      Re: Profanity and society

      Profanity is emotional punctuation. It says I am angry! implicitly about the topic at hand.

      Misuse comes from when rage is going to distress others (e.g. the company of small children and infirm elderly) or when one doesn't understand that this is what profanity means.

      Also, it retains potency when used infrequently, to be a point of contrast, kinda like exclamation bangs and emphatic adverbs (e.g. very, extremely, immensely)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 8:26pm

        Re: Re: Profanity and society

        You're the first - yeah.

        Let's look at your comment. Well your first paragraph is wrong on the whole, even though right in part. There are a small number of occasions where profanity is an "emotional" punctuation. It most certainly rarely says "I am angry about any topic at hand.

        You just need to work in a machine shop, plumbing, F&T, building site or even in a lot of offices and you will see its common everyday non-emotional use. Walk down the street and you'll hear it everywhere. If you actively filter out the profanity, you'll see how little actual discussion, conversation, logically thinking is going on.

        One workshop I was in, basically every sentence from each of the full-timers had profanity every second or third word. Until I filtered it out, it was a distraction from what was being said. After filtering, there wasn't much being said.

        Now who's next?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Jun 2015 @ 8:48pm

          I was opviously mistaken.

          You weren't looking for an answer to your question. You were looking for people to disparage.

          I regret landing myself into your snare. Dopey me!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 11:57pm

            Re: I was opviously mistaken.

            No, you did not land in any snare. But you have missed my point.

            Profanity can on very rare occasions have the effect of, as you stated, expressing extreme emotional distress. As an example, many years ago, a friend who never used profanity of any kind in any conversation with anyone, was heard saying on one occasion only a very mild profanity. At this point, everyone who heard him, knew, without a doubt that something terrible had happened. This was the case, something terrible had happened. None of us ever heard another such word pass his lips. He even apologised for his utterance and for his lack of self-control.

            My point is that profanity, as it is currently used by many individuals, has little to show for it. It is, if you like, the lowest common denominator for societal communication, the equivalent of cavemen grunting. It doesn't add anything to the discussion or conversation. If anything, it significantly lessens the standing of the person uttering the profanity.

            Your particular view about it being a significant indicator of emotional expression does not match the use of profanity within society today.

            You, at least, have expressed your view succinctly with no profanity in your response and have added to the conversation. That is to your commendation. I was expecting some responses that were full of profanity, which have as yet not eventuated.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 8:33am

              Re: Re: I was opviously mistaken.

              The use of profanity can serve as a form of code switching, and is a way to flag the norms of a particular group environment. The light smattering of expletives used in TD posts signal that the articles are opinion/analysis pieces designed to promote an informal discussion where the exchange of ideas is more important than self-censorship in the name of propriety.

              It might make sense to ask that an employer enact a code of etiquette; it doesn't make sense to walk into a dive-bar down by the docks and tell a bunch of merchant marines to watch their manners. Welcome to The Rusty Anchor. Have a drink or leave.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:58pm

              Re: Re: I was opviously mistaken.

              "My point is that profanity, as it is currently used by many individuals, has little to show for it."

              That's your point? Then I honestly don't understand why you felt it necessary to say, and to use so many words to say it. If profanity has little to show for it, then why is it even worth discussing?

              I would counter that since it upsets you so much, your comment is demonstrating that profanity has a lot of rhetorical power, and therefore has a point.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:09am

      Re: Profanity and society

      Fuck that!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 8:26pm

    Site liability for comments is nothing new... if you live in the shitholes of the world. Thailand, for example

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 9:25pm

    Ruling with wide implications

    The post office has so far not been held responsible for the content of mail, since they are only the carriers.
    With this ruling, the mail carrying institutions of Europe must brace themselves, for they too will now be held accountable for not anticipating what may potentially be written in a letter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    fjpoblam, 16 Jun 2015 @ 10:03pm

    Websites must encourage—indeed, demand—politically correct speech

    Freedom, schmeedom. The new norm must be "censorship-challenged". Moderators need carefully to be trained, and meet in committee to approve each and every post prior to publication. Committee meetings must of course be recorded for periodic independent auditing by impartial international tribunals appointed by recognized authorities. (Source of recognition yet to be determined.) Bureaucracy. Our friend in these difficult (easiness-challenged) times. /sarcasm

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:51am

    While I agree that this is a terrible ruling, I don't think the consequences are quite as dire as Mike and many of the commenters here put it.
    Yes this is a bad ruling and yes it comes from one of the highest courts in Europe. But you need to remember that this isn't the US. In Europe as in the Europian Union (I know the UK differs here, but for EU law as well as most of continental Europe) there is no case law.
    This isn't the same as a ruling from the Supreme Court that sets on how the law is interpreted in the Future. Yes it can be used as a guideline, but in Germany for example courts have the explicit right to rule differently than the ECHR if they deem it necessary.
    Although we already have pretty terrible liability laws and are in dire need of something ala Section 230 I don't think this ruling will have much effect on local laws. So far this ruling hasn't even appeared in any of the major news publications I read in Europe. How could it chill free speech if people doesn't even know it exists?

    TL,DR:
    Yes this is a terrible ruling but since we don't have case law it's effects aren't nearly as terrible as some fear.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      RonKaminsky (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 9:23am

      Re:

      > How could it chill free speech if people doesn't even know it exists?

      Simple. It doesn't matter if people know about, it only matters if the websites on which they want to post comments know about it (and have therefore stopped providing that option).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jigsy, 17 Jun 2015 @ 2:19am

    So does this mean that Kodak, Nikon, Sony, etc. are now liable for the fact that people use their products to take photos and/or recorded footage of children being abused or in sexual situations?

    Or Ford, etc. for the fact their cars are used in Bank Robberies, Hit and Runs, etc.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 3:33am

    because commenters are anonymous and anonymity is important -- and because it's difficult to identify anonymous commenters -- well, fuck it, just put the liability on the site instead.


    Aclually it's more along the lines of :because commenters are anonymous and you can't effectively punish them, just put the liability on the site instead since they probably have more money anyway

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Godfrey, 17 Jun 2015 @ 4:23am

    Implications for Social Media

    This could potentially kill Facebook, Twitter etc. if the company can be held liable for anything expressed by its users irrespective of it's sign-up disclaimers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 12:05pm

      Re: Implications for Social Media

      Well losing Facebook and twitter would not be a bad thing. They are 2 things the internet never needed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 5:23am

    Goodbye Internet (as we've known it). Like radio, it was great until corporate/money/power interests took it over. I see this as a ploy to take away the voices of the little people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    RonKaminsky (profile), 17 Jun 2015 @ 9:38am

    Easy to recognize hate speech?

    Everyone whose telephone number isn't relatively prime to all odd perfect numbers should be burned at the stake!

    All [generic minority] should have something done to them, which if I stated exactly what that was, would cause this statement to be hate speech.

    Most judges have so little imagination...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Reality bites, 18 Jun 2015 @ 10:02am

    What else could be expected from a judge

    They are simply the largest most odorous turd to float to the top of the legal cesspool. You could add up all their IQ's world wide and still not hit double digits. Corporate whores do as their pimp demands or they get beat. They aren't capable of coherent thought nor courage to stand up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 18 Jun 2015 @ 10:56am

      Re: What else could be expected from a judge

      We've seen too many exceptions to generalize them all as corrupt and ignorant. Many are -- enough to present a case that the jurist system is broken, itself -- but every once in a while we get an ace ruling.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RM Global Risk, 12 Jul 2015 @ 12:45am

    People need to be accountable

    Freedom comes with responsibility and accountability. Nothing is 'free'. In the U.S. you have the freedom to have your own thoughts and can live how you want as long as you're not infringing on another's rights and it's not illegal. No different on the internet. We all need to be more COMPASSIONATE how we share what we write. Nothing wrong with that. It's the true ass hats that need to change. Step up and take responsibility for things that you may have written that overstepped the line and think about WHAT AND HOW you're writing. I hope it comes back to bite ALL you jerks in the ass in the U.S. Can't wait for that day!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 12 Jul 2015 @ 2:15am

      overstepping the line

      And what gives you the authority to determine what is overstepping the line?

      We've had a number of representatives and agents of law decide that any statement of dissent is objectionable and should be made a crime.

      So you're not going to be able to say sense of such a thing is common.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    usman, 30 Aug 2015 @ 4:01am

    World wide web include billions of websites, Where some has free valuable

    content, some has great premium content, But mostly websites have no content, As

    webmaster are publishing many sites just for earning purpose, So you’ve to

    browse
    browsing-in-2015/"> Google search
    to find out required data.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.