David Hencke on an ECHR ruling which may have serious consequences for bloggers
Journalist David Hecke makes some important points
here
about a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights which might seriously affect the ability of bloggers to operate.
NB - the ruling was made by the European Court of Human Rights, which is part of the Council of Europe, and not to be confused with the European Court, which is part of the European Union. The EHCR is nothing whatsoever to do with the EU and Britain could withdraw from the Council of Europe, European convention on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the European court of Human Rights while remaining part of the European Union, or vice versa.
David quotes a post on Inforrm's blog here. In that post Gabrielle Guileemin argues that the ECHR ruling upholding the Estonian courts in the case brought by a ferry company against the news organisation Delfi AS means that the people running a news site or blog can be held legally responsible for all the comments put up on their site even if they take them down immediately after a complaint.
He writes "Effectively it means that any offended party can pursue a news organisation or blog for any defamatory comment made about them EVEN after it has been removed from the website."
For the majority of the time I have been running this blog I have managed without comment moderation. I did use it for a time, but in response to representations from readers switched it off again for a trial period earlier this year, and so far have been given no reason to regret doing so.
If it hadn't been for this ruling I was going to announce that the trial had been a success and I would make a permanent decision to leave comment moderation off. Thanks to the ECHR that will have to be a decision to leave comment moderation off until further notice.
Basically anyone who's done anything much in politics has enemies, and under this ECHR ruling all one of those enemies has to do to bring down a blogger is to anonymously post something actionable about a litigious company or person on the first victim's blog and then draw it to the attention of the second victim (the person defamed.) With careful selection of targets this tactic can be used to hit two birds with one stone and get one company or person you don't like to ruin another.
It's fair enough to insist that someone running a blog or website has reasonable measures in place to remove libellous comments, but to pursue a blogger or website because of comments they had quickly taken down appears quite unreasonable to me.
At the moment I see no sign of anyone using this tactic against political blogs so I'm leaving comment moderation off. But at the first sign of trouble I will have to review my comments policy again.
NB - the ruling was made by the European Court of Human Rights, which is part of the Council of Europe, and not to be confused with the European Court, which is part of the European Union. The EHCR is nothing whatsoever to do with the EU and Britain could withdraw from the Council of Europe, European convention on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the European court of Human Rights while remaining part of the European Union, or vice versa.
David quotes a post on Inforrm's blog here. In that post Gabrielle Guileemin argues that the ECHR ruling upholding the Estonian courts in the case brought by a ferry company against the news organisation Delfi AS means that the people running a news site or blog can be held legally responsible for all the comments put up on their site even if they take them down immediately after a complaint.
He writes "Effectively it means that any offended party can pursue a news organisation or blog for any defamatory comment made about them EVEN after it has been removed from the website."
For the majority of the time I have been running this blog I have managed without comment moderation. I did use it for a time, but in response to representations from readers switched it off again for a trial period earlier this year, and so far have been given no reason to regret doing so.
If it hadn't been for this ruling I was going to announce that the trial had been a success and I would make a permanent decision to leave comment moderation off. Thanks to the ECHR that will have to be a decision to leave comment moderation off until further notice.
Basically anyone who's done anything much in politics has enemies, and under this ECHR ruling all one of those enemies has to do to bring down a blogger is to anonymously post something actionable about a litigious company or person on the first victim's blog and then draw it to the attention of the second victim (the person defamed.) With careful selection of targets this tactic can be used to hit two birds with one stone and get one company or person you don't like to ruin another.
It's fair enough to insist that someone running a blog or website has reasonable measures in place to remove libellous comments, but to pursue a blogger or website because of comments they had quickly taken down appears quite unreasonable to me.
At the moment I see no sign of anyone using this tactic against political blogs so I'm leaving comment moderation off. But at the first sign of trouble I will have to review my comments policy again.
Comments