# Should the web be a libel-free zone? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225 "2001-06-09T23:26:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/1 "2001-06-09T23:26:45Z")
[This](http://www.smh.com.au/news/0106/09/review/review7.html) article from yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald raises the tantalising question of under what circumstances defamation laws should apply to statements published on the WWW, or whether in fact they should apply at all. As you can see from the article, this is particularly relevant to the US, as currently a great deal of material published on the WWW is protected by the “free speech” provision of the US constitution. Should those provisions extend worldwide, or should they be expanded even further so that essentially nothing published on the WWW would be actionable? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2001, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/2 "2001-06-09T23:39:56Z")
IIRC there was a case in the US which addressed the question of whether the access-provider could be sued for libel posted on the web. To the best of my memory, the court held that the access-porovider was not liable. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/3 "2001-06-10T00:45:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by reprise \* > \*\*[This](http://www.smh.com.au/news/0106/09/review/review7.html) article from yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald raises the tantalising question of under what circumstances defamation laws should apply to statements published on the WWW, or whether in fact they should apply at all. \*\* Yes defamation laws should apply to the internet as well as other areas. I’m not a lawyer so I’m not really famaliar with the laws regarding libel so I’m going to go on principles here. > [@](#): > > \*\* > As you can see from the article, this is particularly relevant to the US, as currently a great deal of material published on the WWW is protected by the “free speech” provision of the US constitution. \*\* Free speech doesn’t give you the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Can you imagine the damage done to a persons reputation if someone created false information about him? This can have profound affects on someone’s professional and private life. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Should those provisions extend worldwide, or should they be expanded even further so that essentially nothing published on the WWW would be actionable? \*\* Well I’d like to see the whole world with free speech laws similiar to that of the United States. But I fail to see how that’s possible any time soon. The bigger issue of the article you linked to was about suing someone in Australian court over what was published on an American web server. Nobody is seriously considering removing someone’s ability to sue based on slanderous statements. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/4 "2001-06-10T01:33:24Z")
A liberal free zone? Damn straight! Ban 'em all, and let’s get Rush Limbaugh in here! ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/5 "2001-06-10T02:26:57Z")
All the libellous sites will move to some african country:) Its not like thats something you can really enforce. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/6 "2001-06-10T04:10:39Z")
Sure. Whose? The problem in a distributed information environment becomes one of jurisdiction. If a server in Bali posts _The Protocols of Zion_ should the website owners be liable for prosecution in Israel? Barring a worldwide treaty establishing a single set of infractions, standard of proof, mechanism for prosecution, etc., I don’t think the Internet will ever be free of defamation and libel. That should not prevent nations from applying their sovereign laws to any entities that host material on servers within their borders, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/7 "2001-06-10T04:53:58Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\* If a server in Bali posts The Protocols of Zion should the website owners be liable for prosecution in Israel?_\* Perhaps the laws of the nation where the _content poster_ resides should apply, regardless of where the servers are located? Example: Someone living in Isreal posts the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion on a server located in, say, the US. Their butt’s in a sling. Someone living in, say, Canada does the same, Isreal has to take _civil_ action against the poster in _Candian_ court if they want it gone. Obviously, in the latter case, should our hypothetical Canadian anti-semite lose his case, and fail to have the content removed, there are further remedies available, such as contempt of court (or whaterver the local equivalent may be). I’m all for holding ISPs blameless for the original posting of harmful material, but feel that once notified of content illegal _in their country_, that they’re bound to give it the whack, immediately. For objectional content of a civil nature, the ISP, IMO, shouldn’t be required to take action short of a court order, and even then the order should be aimed at the original poster, with the ISP acting as the agent of the court in removing the material. Whatttya think? Too naive? Too simple? Or am I missing some important detail? ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/8 "2001-06-10T09:29:00Z")
It’s a whole mess, that’s for certain. In the UK current legislation (in England and Wales and in Scotland) is unclear on the exact status of libel laws and the internet. Precedent, set by Godfrey vs Demon Internet, suggests that it’s a rough ride for ISPs and content providers. They have to be seen to take “reasonable care” and act immediately on receipt of a complaint, legitimate or not. The problem is that the main defence under UK law is to claim to be an “innocent disseminator”: i.e. you just published it, you didn’t review it or edit it. Unfortunately the courts haven’t followed this through in practice, demanding that hosts monitor their content and take precautions. The end result is a Catch-22 situation: you’re expected to take reasonable care with what you host, but if you do then you’re seen as having reviewed it and therefore you’re not an “innocent disseminator”. There are new EU regulations about to come into force that will offer added protection for ISPs, but they’re not foolproof either. I’ll see if I can dig up some more on this. I’m writing an introductory white paper on internet law for work at the moment. As for the OP, I’d have to agree that the chances of harmonising libel laws globally are next to none. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/9 "2001-06-10T09:37:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Whatttya think? Too naive? Too simple? Or am I missing some important detail? Important detail: Web sites such as [http://www.anonymizer.com](http://www.anonymizer.com) allow one to surf the web anonymously. Tracking down the geographic location of the libelous poster may not always be possible. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/10 "2001-06-10T09:41:56Z")
Some further reading: [Liability of ISPs for Defamation in the US & Britain: Same Competing Interests, Different Responses](http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/00-3/deturbide.html) [Defamation Law in Turmoil: The Challenges Presented by the Internet](http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/00-3/weaver.html) The author isn’t too hopeful on trans-jurisdictional lawsuits, really: > [@](#): > > Once someone gains access to the internet, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to communicate information across jurisdictional boundaries. From a defamation perspective, this makes transjurisdictional defamation suits more problematic. While it may be worthwhile to bring a trans-jurisdictional suit against a large media conglomerate which has assets all over the world, it may not be financially worthwhile to pursue defendants with few assets, especially defendants who reside in other countries. > > Even if plaintiffs can obtain judgments, it may be difficult to enforce those judgment trans-jurisdictionally. If the defendant communicates information from the US, the First Amendment to the US Constitution may preclude enforcement. In _Matusevitch v. Telnikoff (877 F.Supp. 1 (D.C. Cir. 1995))_, a US court refused to enforce a British defamation judgment on the basis that the suit involved protected speech, and that enforcement of the British judgment would violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution (as well as US public policy). So, although a defamation plaintiff may be able to sue a defendant in another jurisdiction, recovery of the judgment may be problematic unless the defendant’s assets can be found in a country which provides defamation defendants with fewer protections. Moreover, an unenforced judgment is unlikely to deter the defendant from punishing further allegations. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/11 "2001-06-10T23:39:55Z")
I’m curious what you think of the action referred to in the OP **matt**. It was clearly initiated in Australia because our defamation laws are much more likely to find for the plaintiff than the defamation laws of the US. No matter how many hard copies of the Dow publication had been imported into Australia, their importation would not provide grounds for launching an action here - rather, in respect of the hard copies, any action would have to be launched in the US. Is downloading an article essentially different than importing it in hardcopy form? Should the location where the download takes place even be relevant? If one truly wanted to be malicious, presumable one could make defamatory material available from a server located in a country which doesn’t legally recognise defamation… ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2001, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-web-be-a-libel-free-zone/68225/12 "2001-06-11T00:15:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > \*\*Important detail: Web sites such as [http://www.anonymizer.com](http://www.anonymizer.com) allow one to surf the web anonymously. Tracking down the geographic location of the libelous poster may not always be possible. \*\* True, but that’s gonna be an issue no matter whose laws one uses.