|
|
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Perkins [mailto:MarkP@spc.int]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 6:06 AM
To: 'Ang Peng Hwa (Assoc Prof)'; 'APPLe '
Subject: RE: Nobody rules OK?Hi Ang
One issue here is pre vs post judgement censorship. How is an ISP to react if eg. Laurence informs them that they are hosting something they consider libellous (or copyright infringement, or pornography, or...) but this has not yet been confirmed by a court. Most ISP's will/do tend to take the safe option and pull the content prior to court judgement on the content. Sometimes no court judgement is ever made.
IMO, the content should not be pulled until after the court judgement. At a minimum, the content providor/author should be informed, and then they can decide whether to continue with the publication, taking the prosecution risk, leaving the ISP non-liable.
Mark Perkins (Librarian)
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Library
BP D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex
New Caledonia, South Pacific
Tel: +687 262000 Fax: +687 263818
email: markp@spc.int <mailto:markp@spc.int>
web: http://www.spc.int/library/
-----Original Message-----
From: Ang Peng Hwa (Assoc Prof) [mailto:TPHANG@ntu.edu.sg]
Sent: 20 July 2001 01:51
To: 'APPLe '
Subject: RE: Nobody rules OK?
I'm not sure what the alarm is over.
I looked at the case in detail early this year when I was in Oxford on
sabbatical.The UK court in Demon vs Laurence (The Most Number of Internet Libel
Victories) Godfrey ruled that should pay because after Godfrey alerted them
to the libellous posting they should have removed it instead of letting it
stay on and expire routinely. It's not so earth-shaking a ruling when you
look at the facts. The full analysis has been written for the Asia and
Pacific Internet Association and presented at their session at APRICOT in KL
in March.The "new" situation is that an ISP is not liable for content if it does not
know, could not control, or acted reasonably after it knew.Virtually all the countries I looked at--India, Germany, France, Sweden,
Bermuda--had "immunity" provisions that shield ISPs (aka intermediaries)
from liability if they did not originate the content, did not know, or acted
reasonably once they knew.The two countries that immunised the ISPs regardless of the reasonableness
requirement were USA and Singapore. And Singapore's provision is even
wider--it covers both civil and criminal liability altho the term "network
service provider" is used.Interestingly, India and Bermuda in drafting their IT Act and E-Commerce Act
respectively took the Singapore as the first position. But lobbying by
various interested parties inserted the reasonableness and absence of
knowledge requirements.As for who is liable--the originator of course. And if the originator cannot
be found? Well, in life, there are unsolved mysteries too.Ang Peng Hwa
-----Original Message-----
From: David Goldstein
To: APPLe
Sent: 17/7/44 15:03
Subject: Nobody rules OK?Nobody rules OK?
The high court has just decided that internet service providers are
not responsible for the content of their sites. But, asks Steve
Dunne, if they aren't, then who is?Monday July 16, 2001 The Guardian
The high court has just decided that internet service providers are
not responsible for the content of their sites. But, asks Steve
Dunne, if they aren't, then who is?Monday July 16, 2001 The Guardian
When Demon Internet's lawyers emerged from the high court last
Tuesday, they took away a ruling that could change the face of
British internet law. The presiding judge, Dame Elizabeth
Butler-Sloss, had ruled that internet service providers would not be
held responsible if their users revealed the whereabouts or new
identities of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who murdered James
Bulger in 1993.Butler-Sloss, who is responsible for the injunction which protects
Venables and Thompson, said that her original judgment was
inappropriate as regards the internet, and that ISPs were protected
if contemptuous material was posted on web pages - as long as they
took "all reasonable steps" to prevent the publication of such
material.
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,522238,00.h
tml=====
David Goldstein
2/3 Belmont Ave, Glen Iris 3146, Australia
email: Goldstein_David@yahoo.com.au
phone: +61 3 9885 0601 (home)
+61 418 228 605 (mobile)________________________________________________________________________
_____
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots
more!
* APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net *
* APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net *