Why (Allegedly) Defamatory Content On WordPress.com Doesn't Come Down Without A Court Order
from the the-automattic-doctrine dept
Last week, Santa Clara University hosted a gathering of tech platform companies to discuss how they actually handle content moderation questions. Many of the participants in the event have written essays about the questions that were discussed at the event. Between last week and this week, we're publishing a bunch of these essays, including this one.
WordPress.com is one of the most popular publishing platforms online. We host sites for bloggers, photographers, small businesses, political dissidents, and large companies. With more than 70 million websites hosted on our service, we unsurprisingly receive complaints about all types of content. Our terms of service define the categories of content that we don't allow on wordpress.com.
We try to be as objective as possible in defining the categories of content that we do not allow, as well as in our determinations about what types of content fall into, or do not fall into, each category. For most types of disputed content, we have the competency to make a judgment call about whether it violates our terms of service.
One notable and troublesome exception is content that is allegedly untrue or defamatory. Our terms prohibit defamatory content, but it's very difficult if not impossible for us, as a neutral, passive host, to determine the truth or falsity of a piece of content hosted on our service. Our services are geared towards the posting of longer form content and we often receive defamation complaints aimed at apparently well-researched, professionally written blog posts or pieces of journalism.
Defamation complaints put us in the awkward position of making a decision about whether the contents of a website are true or false. Moreover, in jurisdictions outside of the United States, these complaints put us on the hook for legal liability and damages if we don't take the content down after receiving an allegation that it is not true.
Making online hosts and other intermediaries like WordPress.com liable for the allegedly defamatory content posted by users is often criticized for burdening hosts and stifling innovation. But intermediary liability isn't just bad for online hosts. It's also terrible for online speech. The looming possibility of writing a large check incentivizes hosts like Automattic to do one thing when we first receive a complaint about content: Remove it. That decision may legally protect the host, but it doesn't protect users or their online speech.
The Trouble with "Notice and Takedown"
Taken at face value, the notice-and-takedown approach might seem to be a reasonable way to manage intermediary liability. A host isn't liable absent a complaint, and after receiving one, a host can decide what to do about the content.
Internet hosts like Automattic, however, are in no position to judge disputes over the truth of content that we host. Setting aside the marginal number of cases in which it is obvious that content is not defamatory—say, because it expresses an opinion—hosts are not at all equipped to determine whether content is (or is not) true. We can't know whether the subject of a blog post sexually assaulted a woman with whom he worked, if a company employs child laborers, or if a professor's study on global warming is tainted by her funding sources. A host does not have subpoena power to collect evidence. It does not call witnesses to testify and evaluate their credibility. And a host is not a judge or jury. This reality is at odds with laws imputing knowledge that content is defamatory (and liability) merely because a host receives a complaint that content is defamatory and doesn't remove it right away.
Nevertheless, the prospect of intermediary liability encourages hosts to make a judgment anyway, by accepting a complaint at face value and removing the disputed content without any vetting by a court. This process, unfortunately, encourages and rewards abuse. Someone who does not like a particular point of view, or who wants to silence legitimate criticism, understands that he or she has decent odds of silencing that speech by lodging a complaint with the website's host, who often removes the content in hopes of avoiding liability. That strategy is much faster than having the allegations tried in a court, and as a bonus, the complainant won't face the tough questions—Did he assault a co-worker? Did she know that the miners were children? Did he fib his research?
The potential for abuse is not theoretical. We regularly see dubious complaints about supposedly defamatory material at WordPress.com. Here is a sampling:
- A multi-national defense contractor lodged numerous defamation complaints against a whistleblower who posted information about corruption to a WordPress.com blog.
- An international religious/charitable group brought defamation charges against a blogger who questioned the organization's leadership.
- A large European pharmaceutical firm sought, on defamation grounds, to disable a WordPress.com blog, which detailed negative experiences with the firm's products. A court later determined that this content was true.
Of course, valid defamation complaints should be resolved and a system exists for doing so: the complainant can take legal action against the person who posted the content. This process keeps decisions about freedom of expression where they belong—with a court.
Our Approach at Automattic
The threat to legitimate speech posed by the notice and takedown process is behind our policy for dealing with defamation complaints. We do not remove user content based only on an allegation of defamation. We require a court order or judgment on the content at issue before taking action.
The third example above illustrates why we do not honor takedown demands that aren't accompanied by a court order. If we chose not to wait for a court order, but instead eliminated any potential liability by immediately disabling the site, we would have taken an important, and truthful, voice offline.
Our policy is the right one for us, but it can also be costly. We are often sued in defamation cases around the world based on our users' content. At any given time, we have upwards of twenty defamation cases pending against us around the globe. This is an inevitable side effect of our policies, and we try to be judicious about our involvement in the cases that we do see. Some cases result in a quick and straightforward judgment, but others require more fact-finding and we often face a choice about what our level of involvement should be. Ideally, we want to spend our resources fighting cases that matter–either because there is a serious risk to the freedom of speech of users who want their content to remain online, or because there is a serious risk to the company or our people. We recognize that we have some power as a host to not only demand a court order before removing content, but also that we can play a part in ensuring a more fair adjudication of some disputes if we are actively involved in a case. We view this as an important role, both for our users and for the values of free speech, especially in cases where important speech issues are at stake and/or there is a very clear differential in power between the complaining party and our user.
In each lawsuit, we ask ourselves a few questions: What is this case about? Does the user want to keep the content to remain online, and could we make a difference on the user's behalf? What is the blog about? Are there any political or other important speech issues? Is there a potential monetary award against us?
We like to call our rubric for making decisions on when to step in to help defend our users "The Automattic Doctrine", and the answers to the questions above help us decide how actively participate in the lawsuit. In our experience, the determinative question is most often whether the user wants to be involved in the defense and work with us to keep their ideas and opinions online.
Our approach ultimately puts the decision about whether content is defamatory, or instead, protected speech, in front of the right decision maker: a neutral court of law. Leaving such important decisions to the discretion of Internet hosts is misplaced and tilts the balance in favor of silencing often legitimate voices.
Paul Sieminski is General Counsel at Automattic. Holly Hogan is Associate General Counsel at Automattic.
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: censorship, content moderation, court orders, defamation, free speech, moderation, takedowns
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.
This is probably technically true. I support it about as much as he does, which is to say that while I recognize its importance I also recognize the harm that it can do when abused, and I understand that it should not be an absolute right. As Mike does.
Specifically, when John Doe's copyright clashes with my fundamental Constitutional right to the Presumption of Innocence, the Presumption of Innocence needs to win out every single time. When it does not, something is very wrong, and in the DMCA, it does not. Therefore, something is very wrong with the DMCA.
I once heard an AI researcher give a very interesting definition of intelligence, as in "the quality that humans have that computers find exceptionally difficult to emulate." His definition was: the capability to grasp and appropriately respond to nuance.
Please be more intelligent in future posts. It helps you to not appear so dumb to the rest of us.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is a very important point. My only quibble with it is that it doesn't go far enough: there's nothing particularly special about defamation. No content at all should be removed for violating the law on accusation alone. The DMCA's notice-and-takedown system is a legal abomination; these are matters that should be determined in a court of law, because they're too open to abuse otherwise. The DMCA needs to be thrown out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least with the DMCA you're allowed to fight it. Some countries have decided that if you try to fight it you're instantly liable even on the weak standard of whether the content was true or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Brought to us by the left and the right! Keep voting them in folks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.
Let's be clear up front that you do not support copyright any more than Masnick does. Your hostility to DMCA stems from that, and likely from your wish to get all content for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.
WELL? I'm never going to learn unless instructed. The sentence is a trifle awkward, but I think clear if start without bias. I'm not going for elegance, here, just jamming in some facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.
But since you like the DMCA so much, have a DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.
This is probably technically true. I support it about as much as he does, which is to say that while I recognize its importance I also recognize the harm that it can do when abused, and I understand that it should not be an absolute right. As Mike does.
Specifically, when John Doe's copyright clashes with my fundamental Constitutional right to the Presumption of Innocence, the Presumption of Innocence needs to win out every single time. When it does not, something is very wrong, and in the DMCA, it does not. Therefore, something is very wrong with the DMCA.
I once heard an AI researcher give a very interesting definition of intelligence, as in "the quality that humans have that computers find exceptionally difficult to emulate." His definition was: the capability to grasp and appropriately respond to nuance.
Please be more intelligent in future posts. It helps you to not appear so dumb to the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
Sigh. Been days of complaints from upper class lawyers about how difficult it is -- which means only that people nowadays just want to gain money without trouble or risk.
Sure, it'd be great for YOU if immune from defamation, but that's not LAW that can apply to everyone, it's privilege for YOU!
Sure, professionals can make their whining look soundly based in public good, but bottom line is they just want more money more easily. Nothing new about that either merely because it's now "on teh internets".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
Also, explain why what is published should be limited by a gatekeeper, as that has always limited the number of people who could get there works published, and is no guarantee that the best works produced get published.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
Not entirely true. Try distributing child porn, smartypants, and see whether a mere distributor isn't criminally liable -- even if entirely "unaware" of the content, as Kim Dotcom claims to be.
No, but the writer / editor / publisher, yes. Electronic publishing is publishing.
May be a good idea to limit, as I stated. There's reason behind the laws that govern publishing, they're not so arbitrary as you believe, nor the societal ills caused by rampant publishing different because "on teh internets".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
Indeed, and the person that posts the content is the publisher, and not the company that provides the software, storage and bandwidth that allow them to publish.
Also, just because you prefer someone else to decide what content is suitable for you to see, others are more mature, and make the decision of what to see for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
The write, editor and publisher of a blog are all the same person. The media is a web site, akin to the printing press in your example. Would you try to sue the printing press for libel or go after the person actually responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
But your explanation seems good too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
Er, if that's arguing other than my view, I'm too dense to get it.
But either way, I guess you too can try running a press printing child porn someone else orders and see whether mere mechanics of pressing is safe. -- That censorship has been reduced greatly of late, but there still some limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
You just re-stated much of the problem as if it's the excuse.
And it's now becoming less true as cases work their way through the entrails of the legal system, and politicians and others THINK on the practical consequences of so many persons publishing so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
As for the consequences of so many people p[publishing, it means that there is more education, interesting and entertaining material published every second that is is easy to ignore the dross, and build ones own curated list of people whose works you will look at. Indeed the problem is deciding who to follow, rather than finding enough interesting works to fill in the available time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.
You just re-stated much of the problem as if it's the excuse.
You keep restating this as if it is a problem.
the practical consequences of so many persons publishing so much.
Much-decried elitism at its finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's notable that many of the worrying complaints we receive (including all of the examples above) come from large corporations or wealthy individuals and are aimed at small publishers or individual bloggers"
Yes, The Rich and their infernal corporations are ALWAYS the problem, using their undue power of mere money to control the lower class.
Of course, any who hold that view are dismissed as "Marxists" by those who've been indoctrinated by the very class of persons who hold near all of the power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It's notable that many of the worrying complaints we receive (including all of the examples above) come from large corporations or wealthy individuals and are aimed at small publishers or individual bloggers"
That you support these idiots, and scream about contradictions against them as "anomalies", comes as no surprise. You're a corporate fluffer through and through, blue boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation by claim of defamation
It occurs to me that someone should experiment with defamation by claim of defamation.
According to the Wikipedia article:
Okay so let's propose an example. Joe publishes a Blog article. Bob doesn't like the article so he makes a false complaint to the blog host that it is defamatory.
Per the above, Bob has defamed Joe. He has made a claim that is false and he has made it to someone other than Joe. So Joe should be able to sue Bob for defamation.
If a few of these idiots pursued the falsely claiming defamation, maybe other idiots would think twice before doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof before action, and where the parties reside
Then, some consideration of the location of the court and the location of the parties, and the location of the 'provider' (since the publisher is the writer in many instances) should be undertaken. If some of the parties are in different countries and the 'provider' may be in yet another country other than the court, there may be no reason to follow the courts rulings.
It's a mess. The 'provider' should follow laws and court orders in the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated or licensed, but court orders from without that jurisdiction should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. In addition, the courts in the location of the 'provider' should not bow to the determinations of courts in other locations without adjudicating the issues themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I get it/
It's all vending machine.
Two days later....
Oh, look live web page[user] has flag and compliance has an email.
[ bunch of words from Z and a demand to remove defamatory post]
live web page[legal] -> see the judge for court order
Shame DMCA was bought by Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wordpress
WordPress is an award-winning CMS software, used by millions of webmasters worldwide for building their website or blogs. Moreover, Thanks for such a relevant information. I am myself an <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/expert-seo-freelancer-delhi/">SEO Professional</a> and after reading your blog, I can say this blog will really help every digital marketer at the beginner stage. Looking forward to more relevant blogs from the page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WORDPRESS sold out Israeli journalists into jail
Lory Shem Tov is now suing the US-DOJ in Washington DC under FOIA for refusing to give her copies of the Notice of Preservation and correspondence with Simienski.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah so this is total bullshit, especially the part about having to move to USA to do it. You guys know that someone has defamatory material out there and you know it's illegal but you do not give a shit. Total crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamatory Letter
WordPress-Your article ASSUMES that the content posted "may" or may not be true, when that sometimes should be less important than the obvious intent of the poster.... Tell me, why would a former boss with a criminal record post a defamatory letter full of false accusations about a former employee using ALL their personal information, while omitting his, for ANY other reason than to DEFAME? Clearly, that is the obvious intent, yet you fail to respond to removal in such cases where the truth is clear. You should take some responsibility and set certain parameters for what people can post, and users should NEVER be allowed to personal content that could potentially be defamatory-so why is your law on the abusers side????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]