UK Parliament Recommends Websites Be Liable For Anonymous Comments If They Won't Reveal Identities
from the privacy? dept
Last month we wrote about a ridiculous policy suggestion by a US lawyer who thought it would be a good idea to make websites liable for anonymous comments, if they don't reveal who posted the info. We thought this was just some crazy "out there" idea that wasn't getting serious consideration anywhere. Tragically, that appears to be false. A UK parliamentary committee is suggesting that a good policy would be that websites need to reveal the identity of anonymous posters, or be liable for what's in those comments. Think of it as the opposite idea of Section 230 of the CDA in the US. Whereas Section 230 protected websites from being liable for the speech of their users, it seems like the UK would like to go in the other direction... and is cluelessly blaming anonymity in the process.The full proposal is a bit more involved, and seems to have some good ideas, including reducing the ridiculously high cost of libel lawsuits in the UK. It also notes that UK law already makes it such that websites can be liable for user comments, so they actually see this proposal as an improvement. It would require that any site hosting a comment that people complain about also post the complaint near the original comment. But if the comment is anonymous, the site needs to remove the comment immediately or face liability. They try to deal with the situation in which someone has a good reason for being anonymous by suggesting that a website could apply for a "leave up" order from the court. But, of course, that shifts the burden to the websites, many of which will just take the speech down or identify the user.
Like so many others these days, this report appears to confuse the fact that some people do obnoxious things while anonymous with the idea that anonymity is the problem.
The committee criticises comments made anonymously, which it says "may encourage free speech but it also discourages responsibility" and sets out moves it hopes will lead to a "cultural shift towards a general recognition that unidentified postings are not to be treated as true, reliable or trustworthy".You know what discourages responsibility? When you get to pin liability on a third party who didn't create the content in the first place.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, defamation, free speech, liability, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seriously....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Speaking of Responsibility
+
may encourage free speech but it also discourages responsibility
I think this law discourages responsibility. It is trying to lay blame at somebody's feet because they don't want to help you. Imagine if we had laws like this everywhere.
A cop pulls up alongside you as you walk on the sidewalk. He asks you where the guy who sells weed is on the street. You don't know. So he arrests you for protecting the seller's identity and charges you with selling weed. Seems about equivalent to me (since an IP doesn't represent a person's identity how could the website know who they were?).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
“Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The new DOS attack for British websites
The trick may be getting the botnet to come up with comments with enough variety so they can't be caught with a simple pattern match, but there are plenty of forums that offer a rich source of defamatory comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royal-wedding/2011/06/10/prince-philip-quotes-relive-90-cla ssic-gaffes-to-mark-his-90th-birthday-115875-23191024/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Am I suddenly no longer anonymous if I put "ike" in the name box instead of "Anonymous"?
Is the difference whether I give an email address or not?
Is the difference whether I give a verified email address or not?
Is the difference whether I give a verified email address from an email provider can and does respond to identification requests or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Seriously....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Seriously....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Seriously....
The fact that they're completely out of touch with reality and still cozying up to the more odious elements of the media over here is staggering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-- Winston Churchill
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Check out this BS
http://activepolitic.com:82/News/2011-10-19d/EU_Parliament_Debates_Installing_A_Black_Bo x_On_Your_Computer.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From the country that let everyone come to their shores and sue anyone anywhere because someone in the country might have read a something that hurt their feelings... what is that word...
From the country that let a newspaper spy on stars, royals, interfere with the police and an investigation.... why can't I think of that word....
From the country that let pseudoscience sue the man who had balls enough to call them on their lies.... its a good word....
Talk amongst yourselves... I need to ponder this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freedom of Human Speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And if that isn't what this legal stuff is about then it is clearly just stinkfest slimy lawyers making more income for themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A economic question
[ link to this | view in thread ]