« Some questions for the PM | Main | Broadcasting Standards issue »
Web hosts’ defamation liability restricted
By Steven | September 19, 2014
In a significant Court of Appeal decision (see Murray v Wishart), hot off the press, the judges have unanimously ruled that a third party publisher (the owner of a Facebook page that contained comments by others) was not liable for other people’s comments simply because he “ought to have known” that they contain defamatory material (even if he didn’t actually know of the content of the comments). So hosts of Facebook pages will only be liable for defamation of posters’ comments if (a) they actually knew about the comments and (b) failed to remove them in a reasonable time in circumstances that give rise to an inference that they were taking responsibility for the comments.
Will this apply to other content hosts, such as the Blogger platform, search engines and ISPs? Maybe. The Court said:
Our analysis of the authorities shows how sensitivethe outcome can be to the particular circumstances of the publication. The fact that many of the authorities relate to publication in one form or another on the internet does not provide any form of common theme, because of hte different roles taken by the alleged publisher in each case.
So there’s still room for development of the law here. And the outcomes for online entities that have some role in publishing others’ comments seems somewhat fact sensitive. The indications in this judgment are that the Courts should assess which analogies are most appropriate in the particular circumstances: for example, is the publisher more like a news vendor (who can be taken to have accepted liablity for the publications being sold, subject to an innocent dissemination defence), or the owner of a public noticeboard (who hasn’t really taken part in publication until they are told someone has posted a defamatory notice)?
This offers some comfort to ISPs, who are usually likely to fall into the latter category. But it seems that once they are notified, then it will usually be a short step to the conclusion that they have adopted the statement if they do not remove it within a reasonable time.
Topics: Defamation, Internet issues | 48 Comments »
August 20th, 2018 at 3:20 pm
fitflop outlet
Web hosts’ defamation liability restricted | Media Law Journal
May 22nd, 2020 at 1:42 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
June 27th, 2020 at 11:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
July 29th, 2020 at 9:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 8:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 10:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 44650 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
September 20th, 2020 at 6:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
September 23rd, 2020 at 9:05 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
September 29th, 2020 at 10:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
October 1st, 2020 at 7:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
October 6th, 2020 at 11:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 34543 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
October 9th, 2020 at 10:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
October 19th, 2020 at 8:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 41486 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
October 31st, 2020 at 1:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
November 5th, 2020 at 7:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
November 6th, 2020 at 12:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
November 7th, 2020 at 1:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 68240 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
November 10th, 2020 at 12:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
November 12th, 2020 at 1:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
December 2nd, 2020 at 6:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 47280 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
December 7th, 2020 at 3:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
December 23rd, 2020 at 2:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 12:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
January 20th, 2021 at 6:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
January 24th, 2021 at 4:08 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
March 3rd, 2021 at 8:01 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
March 9th, 2021 at 11:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 63495 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
May 1st, 2021 at 11:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 57269 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
May 7th, 2021 at 11:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
May 19th, 2021 at 4:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
June 22nd, 2021 at 8:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 59214 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 5:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 6:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 2:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
July 27th, 2021 at 8:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
September 19th, 2021 at 11:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
October 21st, 2021 at 7:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
November 18th, 2021 at 5:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
November 23rd, 2021 at 10:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
December 11th, 2021 at 1:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 40179 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
January 18th, 2022 at 12:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
January 29th, 2022 at 1:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
March 25th, 2022 at 1:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
April 15th, 2022 at 4:01 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
April 26th, 2022 at 12:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
May 27th, 2022 at 1:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
June 19th, 2022 at 7:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]
June 20th, 2022 at 1:49 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=639 […]