Archive for the ‘internet defamation’ Category
February 4, 2013
Catherine R. Gellis (Digital Age Defense) has published “2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content“, Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2012 which contains a summary of key cases regarding 47 U.S.C. Section 230 and 17 U.S.C. Section 512.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Blog, Communications Decency Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Internet service provider, Law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, United States, User-generated content
Posted in 17 U.S.C. Section 512, 47 U.S.C. Section 230, blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, communications, hyperlinking, intermediaries, intermediary liability, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, Internet Service Providers, Online Defamation, Section 230, user-generated content, website | Leave a Comment »
January 10, 2013
Mohamed Ali Saeh (Queensland University of Technology – Faculty of Law) has posted “Online Defamation and Intermediaries’ Liability: International”. The abstract reads:
The Internet technology and the increasing popular World Wide Web have brought enormous benefits to our lives, with their emphasis on free and easy communication. It has become simple for people to buy books, make electronic payment for tickets or goods and even work online. Additionally, information can now be shared a more expedient way amongst a greater number of individuals than even before. As a consequence of this technological advance, it often becomes impossible to identify the source of material made available online and whether that material is subject to copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, and online defamation or is an obscene publication.
In recent years, the Internet technology and the increasing popular World Wide Web have brought enormous benefits to our lives, with their emphasis on free and easy communication. It has become simple for people to buy books, make electronic payment for tickets or goods and even work online. Additionally, information can now be shared a more expedient way amongst a greater number of individuals than even before. As a consequence of this technological advance, it often becomes impossible to identify the source of material made available online and whether that material is subject to copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, and online defamation or is an obscene publication.
According to the article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, “everyone has the right to freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive and import information and ideas though any media regardless of frontiers.” This right is known as “Freedom of expression”. Furthermore, the United Nations, Human Rights Commission expressed that the internet should be used “not only as a means of exchanging and disseminating information, but as a tool to improve the enjoyment of human rights such as freedom of expression”
Although the internet facilitates quick communications between people, it also provides an opportunity for dishonest users to do lasting damage to another’s reputation. This cyber damage not occurs on a wide scale, but also in the inexpensive and most expedient way. As it has been said “sticks and stones can break your bones and even words can hurt you.” The Cyber defamation is intentional infringement to another person’s right to his or her good name. As this type of offence occurs on the internet, it can be seen, heard or read on computers by millions of users worldwide. The victim may be subject to immeasurable moral damage because the information might be incorrect and people might believe it. Therefore, the question raised hear is to determine who is responsible for this online offence such as uploading a file or pictures that contain a defamatory material or sending emails contain such material. Of course, the primary publishers who disseminate the defamatory material will be liable, such as senders of an e-mail messages or web site content providers. However, the issue here is the potential responsibility of the mediator. For instance, Internet service providers (ISPs) and bulletin board operators should be held liable in certain circumstances, because they are able to remove or block offending material. Most countries have attempted to apply and adjust their existing domestic laws to extend to online defamation. However, the issue of potential liability of intermediaries, especially in so far as online defamation is concerned, will require legislative and jurisdictional cooperation to find clear and effective solutions.
Download a pdf copy of the paper via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted in cyberlibel, cyberspace, intellectual property, intermediaries, International, international dispute resolution, international law, international litigation, internet defamation, internet law, Internet Service Providers, ISP, Online Defamation, online reputation, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) | Leave a Comment »
December 19, 2012
Laura E. Little (Temple University – James E. Beasley School of Law) has published “Internet Defamation, Freedom of Expression, and the Lessons of Private International Law for the United States”, European Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 14, 2012. The abstract reads:
This article reviews current developments in U.S. conflict of laws doctrine pertaining to transnational internet defamation cases, including personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of judgments. To resolve personal jurisdiction and choice of law issues in internet defamation cases, U.S. courts have adapted rules from the non-internet context with relative ease. Reported cases tend to concern domestic internet disputes between U.S. entities, with few plaintiffs attracted to U.S. courts for the purpose of litigating cross-border defamation claims. Although the U.S. serves as a magnet jurisdiction for many types of litigation, two liability-defeating laws render the country inhospitable to defamation claims: (1) the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment speech protections and (2) a statute affording immunity to internet “providers or users” for information “provided by another content provider.” Perhaps because of these provisions litigants are largely inspired to go elsewhere. The resulting libel tourism has prompted important U.S. developments pertaining to enforcement and recognition of foreign defamation judgments. Thus, for conflict of laws matters pertaining to internet defamation, it is judgments law that reflects the greatest activity and most profound change.
After reviewing personal jurisdiction and choice of law trends, this article describes legal developments pertaining to internet defamation judgments. The article critiques lawmakers’ adherence to First Amendment exceptionalism in regulating internet defamation judgments and identifies flaws reflected in state libel tourism statutes and the federal libel tourism statute, the SPEECH act of 2010.
Download the article via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Conflict of Laws, Defamation, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Freedom of speech, International law, Jurisdiction, United States
Posted in choice of forum, choice of law, conflict of laws, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Law, enforcement, First Amendment, foreign judgments, foreign plaintiffs, international law, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, libel, Libel Chill, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, personal jurisdiction, private international law, public policy, SPEECH Act | Leave a Comment »
October 4, 2012
Sarah Ludington (Campbell University – The Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law; Duke University School of Law; North Carolina Central University (NCCU) has published “Aiming at the Wrong Target: The ‘Audience Targeting’ Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases”, 73 Ohio State L.J. 541 (2012). The abstract reads:
In Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), the Fourth Circuit crafted a jurisdictional test for Internet defamation that requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant specifically targeted an audience in the forum state for the state to exercise jurisdiction. This test relies on the presumption that the Internet — which is accessible everywhere — is targeted nowhere; it strongly protects foreign libel defendants who have published on the Internet from being sued outside of their home states. Other courts, including the North Carolina Court of Appeals, have since adopted or applied the test. The jurisdictional safe harbor (ironically) provided by the very ubiquity of the Internet is no doubt welcomed by media defendants and frequent Internet publishers (e.g., bloggers) whose use of the Internet exposes them to potentially nationwide jurisdiction for defamation. But it may go too far in protecting libel defendants from facing the consequences of their false and injurious statements. For every libel defendant insulated from jurisdiction in a remote location, there is also a libel plaintiff who has potentially been denied an effective remedy in a convenient location. This article argues that the jurisdictional test created in Young is flawed and particularly should not be applied to libel defendants. It concludes with a simple suggestion: that the appropriate test for personal jurisdiction over libel defendants in cases of Internet defamation is the standard minimum contacts analysis.
The article is available for download via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Defamation, Law, North Carolina Court of Appeals, Personal jurisdiction, United States
Posted in blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Law, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, personal jurisdiction | Leave a Comment »
September 28, 2012
Lili Levi (University of Miami – School of Law) has published “The Problem of Trans-National Libel”, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. LX, No. 2, Spring 2012/ University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-25. Here’s the abstract:
Forum shopping in trans-national libel cases “libel tourism” has a chilling effect on journalism) academic scholarship) and scientific criticism. The United States and Britain (the most popular venue for such cases) have recently attempted to address the issue legislatively. In 2070) the United States passed the SPEECH Act) which prohibits recognition and enforcement of libel judgments from jurisdictions applying law less speech-protective than the First Amendment. In Britain) consultation has closed and the Parliamentary Joint Committee has issued its report on a broad-ranging libel reform bill proposed by the Government in March 2011. This Article questions the extent to which the SPEECH Act and the Draft Defamation Bill will accomplish their stated aims. The SPEECH Act provides little protection for hard-hitting investigative and accountability journalism by professional news organizations with global assets. The proposed British bill has important substantive limits. Moreover) even if Parliament approves reform legislation discouraging libel tourism) such actions may shift to other claimant-friendly jurisdictions. Global harmonization of libel law is neither realistic nor desirable. Instead this Article proposes a two-fold approach. On the legal front, it supports the liberalizations of Britain’s proposed libel reform legislation and calls for foreign courts) when assessing the significance of contacts to the forum in cases affecting the United States) to consider seriously the importance of extensive First Amendment protections for political speech to the American concept of democracy. In addition) the Article calls for voluntary initiatives such as: 1) new approaches to help defend trans-national defamation claims when they are brought; and 2) measures to reduce the number of trans-national libel cases by improving the way in which the press does its job. The defense measures explored include the development of community-funded (rather than media-supported) libel defense funds; the formation of pro bono libel review consortia; and alternative approaches to increasing the availability of libel insurance. The recommended press-improvement measures include expanded access to documents, as well as the enhancement of accountability measures such as best-practices education, journalistic self-criticism, and updated codes of conduct.
A copy of the article is available for download via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Britain, Defamation, Government, Law, Libel tourism, Philippine, United Nations Human Rights Committee, United States
Posted in cyberlaw, cyberlibel, cyberspace, defamation, Defamation Act 2011, Defamation Law, First Amendment, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, Internet Service Providers, libel, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, SPEECH Act, Transnational, Transnational Law, transnational litigation, United Kingdom, United States | Leave a Comment »
Catherine R. Gellis (Digital Age Defense) has published “2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content“, Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2012 which contains a summary of key cases regarding 47 U.S.C. Section 230 and 17 U.S.C. Section 512.
Antonin I. Pribetic
