File Download
Supplementary

Others: Liability of Internet Host Providers in Defamation Actions: From Gatekeepers to Identifiers

TitleLiability of Internet Host Providers in Defamation Actions: From Gatekeepers to Identifiers
Authors
KeywordsOnline defamation
Host liability
News forum
Hong Kong
United Kingdom
Issue Date2014
AbstractInternet intermediary liabilities in defamation actions have posed vexing legal problems in the new Internet social era of Web 2.0, especially when users can generate and spread their own content anonymously without being easily identified. This often puts host providers of discussion forums in a difficult position. Interestingly, different legal approaches were put forward in three jurisdictions in 2013. First, the European Court of Human Rights held in Delfi AS v Estonia that an Internet news provider was liable for the comments posted by its readers despite the fact that it had removed the objectionable content upon receiving notice from the claimant. Second, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal decided on the liability of online service providers in the case of Oriental Press Group Ltd. v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd. It confirmed the decisions of the lower courts and ruled that the provider of an online discussion forum is liable for defamatory remarks posted by third parties, and that therefore when it has received notification from a complainant it has a duty to remove the defamatory remarks within a reasonable time. In both the Delfi and Feva judgments, what has been decided but far from settled is an online host provider’s duty to monitor. In contrast to these two positions, which treated host providers as gatekeepers, the third alternative was provided by the newly amended Defamation Act of the United Kingdom. To a great extent, the duties and liabilities of host providers under the new regime depend on whether the originator of the defamatory statement can be identified. In comparing and studying the approaches applied by the three above-mentioned legal regimes, this paper argues that it is necessary to have a special regulatory regime for Internet host providers. To be fair to host providers, users and victims of defamatory statements, clear guidelines on host providers’ monitoring duties and ground rules for users should be stated at the outset.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/197827
SSRN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCheung, ASY-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-29T09:01:05Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-29T09:01:05Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/197827-
dc.description.abstractInternet intermediary liabilities in defamation actions have posed vexing legal problems in the new Internet social era of Web 2.0, especially when users can generate and spread their own content anonymously without being easily identified. This often puts host providers of discussion forums in a difficult position. Interestingly, different legal approaches were put forward in three jurisdictions in 2013. First, the European Court of Human Rights held in Delfi AS v Estonia that an Internet news provider was liable for the comments posted by its readers despite the fact that it had removed the objectionable content upon receiving notice from the claimant. Second, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal decided on the liability of online service providers in the case of Oriental Press Group Ltd. v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd. It confirmed the decisions of the lower courts and ruled that the provider of an online discussion forum is liable for defamatory remarks posted by third parties, and that therefore when it has received notification from a complainant it has a duty to remove the defamatory remarks within a reasonable time. In both the Delfi and Feva judgments, what has been decided but far from settled is an online host provider’s duty to monitor. In contrast to these two positions, which treated host providers as gatekeepers, the third alternative was provided by the newly amended Defamation Act of the United Kingdom. To a great extent, the duties and liabilities of host providers under the new regime depend on whether the originator of the defamatory statement can be identified. In comparing and studying the approaches applied by the three above-mentioned legal regimes, this paper argues that it is necessary to have a special regulatory regime for Internet host providers. To be fair to host providers, users and victims of defamatory statements, clear guidelines on host providers’ monitoring duties and ground rules for users should be stated at the outset.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.subjectOnline defamation-
dc.subjectHost liability-
dc.subjectNews forum-
dc.subjectHong Kong-
dc.subjectUnited Kingdom-
dc.titleLiability of Internet Host Providers in Defamation Actions: From Gatekeepers to Identifiersen_US
dc.typeOthersen_US
dc.identifier.emailCheung, ASY: annechue@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.description.naturepreprint-
dc.identifier.spage1-
dc.identifier.epage35-
dc.publisher.placeHong Kong-
dc.identifier.ssrn2428566-
dc.identifier.hkulrp2014/013-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats