File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

Article: Liability of Online Service Providers for Defamatory Content: The Case of Online Discussion Forums

TitleLiability of Online Service Providers for Defamatory Content: The Case of Online Discussion Forums
Authors
KeywordsDefamation
Libel
Publication
Defence
Defense
Issue Date2014
PublisherSweet & Maxwell Ltd.
Citation
The Law Quarterly Review, 2014, v. 130 n. 2, p. 206-211 How to Cite?
AbstractA perplexing, contemporary issue in libel law is whether online service providers (OSPs) should be held responsible for defamatory content published by Internet users using their services. The English courts have previously wrestled with this issue in the context of weblogs (Tamiz v. Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 2151; Davison v. Habeeb [2011] EWHC 3031 (QB); [2012] 3 C.M.L.R. 6), newsgroups (Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd [2001] Q.B. 201), search engines (Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v. Designtechnica Corp [2009] EWHC 1765; [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1743), and mere conduits (Bunt v. Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB); [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1243). In Oriental Press Group Ltd v. Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2013] HKEC 1025, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA), perhaps for the first time in the common law world, addressed this question in the setting of online discussion forums. This paper critically analyses the reasoning of the HKCFA in Oriental Press Group.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/197787
ISSN
2000 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.121
SSRN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKwok, HF-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-29T08:53:05Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-29T08:53:05Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationThe Law Quarterly Review, 2014, v. 130 n. 2, p. 206-211-
dc.identifier.issn0023-933X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/197787-
dc.description.abstractA perplexing, contemporary issue in libel law is whether online service providers (OSPs) should be held responsible for defamatory content published by Internet users using their services. The English courts have previously wrestled with this issue in the context of weblogs (Tamiz v. Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68; [2013] 1 W.L.R. 2151; Davison v. Habeeb [2011] EWHC 3031 (QB); [2012] 3 C.M.L.R. 6), newsgroups (Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd [2001] Q.B. 201), search engines (Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v. Designtechnica Corp [2009] EWHC 1765; [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1743), and mere conduits (Bunt v. Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB); [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1243). In Oriental Press Group Ltd v. Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2013] HKEC 1025, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA), perhaps for the first time in the common law world, addressed this question in the setting of online discussion forums. This paper critically analyses the reasoning of the HKCFA in Oriental Press Group.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSweet & Maxwell Ltd.-
dc.relation.ispartofThe Law Quarterly Review-
dc.subjectDefamation-
dc.subjectLibel-
dc.subjectPublication-
dc.subjectDefence-
dc.subjectDefense-
dc.titleLiability of Online Service Providers for Defamatory Content: The Case of Online Discussion Forumsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailKwok, HF: khfkwok@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.hkuros236514-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage206-
dc.identifier.epage211-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.identifier.ssrn2420688-
dc.identifier.hkulrp2014/011-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats