KMC Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 1996 provides that: "In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that - (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and © he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement." Although this section is an improvement over the vagueness of the pre- existing common law, its phrasing still leaves much to be desired from the viewpoint of ISP liability. The defence of proving "reasonable care" provided by s 1(1)(b) is only available to persons who are not "publishers" according to s 1(1)(a). A "publisher" is defined in s 1(2) as a commercial publisher, ie, a person whose business is issuing material to the public. This would certainly seem to exclude non-commercial hosts such as universities, but to embrace commercial ISPs. Furthermore, if an ISP monitors or edits content, as both Prodigy and CompuServe did, it is also likely to be regarded as an "editor" as this is defined as including any person "having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it." However s 1(3) goes on to state that "A person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved … ©in … operating or providing any equipment, system or service by means of which the statement is retrieved, copied, distributed or made available in electronic form;…[or] (e) as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control." [parts omitted and emphasis added] More can be found here http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Although this section is an improvement over the vagueness of the pre- existing common law It wasn't common law, it was covered by the 1952 Defamation Act, in England and Wales at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Guys, we've had lots of advice from a real lawyer over the years and we understand our position fully. This discussion would be far more useful if it concentrated on what crosses boundaries of taste and decency as opposed to internet lawyers copy pasting from websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 This discussion would be far more useful if it concentrated on what crosses boundaries of taste and decency... Shall I leave now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 This discussion would be far more useful if it concentrated on what crosses boundaries of taste and decency We've had that discussion on the Bland / Woss thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMC Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Guys, we've had lots of advice from a real lawyer over the years and we understand our position fully. This discussion would be far more useful if it concentrated on what crosses boundaries of taste and decency as opposed to internet lawyers copy pasting from websites. Accepted, but it does give a little insight for the average member in that they might not be fully aware of the consequences of their written/published actions on this and any other site!! Just trying to be helpful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Guys, we've had lots of advice from a real lawyer over the years and we understand our position fully. This discussion would be far more useful if it concentrated on what crosses boundaries of taste and decency as opposed to internet lawyers copy pasting from websites. Accepted, but it does give a little insight for the average member in that they might not be fully aware of the consequences of their written/published actions on this and any other site!! Just trying to be helpful There is no point trying to be reasonable or helpful on here. Try being reactionary and offensive, you'll feel right at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.