INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES’ LIABILITY FOR ONLINE ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH

Considering the prevalence of online hate speech and its harm and risks to the targeted people, democratic discourse and public security, it is necessary to combat online hate speech. For this purpose, internet intermediaries play a crucial role as new governors of online speech. However, there is no universal definition of hate speech. Rules concerning this vary in different countries depending on their social, ethical, legal and religious backgrounds. The answer to the question of who can be liable for online hate speech also varies in different countries depending on the social, cultural, history, legal and political backgrounds. The First Amendment, cyberliberalism and the priority of promoting the emerging internet industry lead to the U.S. model, which offers intermediaries wide exemptions from liability for third-party illegal content. Conversely, the Chinese model of cyberpaternalism prefers to control online content on ideological, political and national security grounds through indirect methods, whereas the European Union (EU) and most European countries, including Germany, choose the middle ground to achieve balance between restricting online illegal hate speech and the freedom of speech as well as internet innovation. It is worth noting that there is a heated discussion on whether intermediary liability exemptions are still suitable for the world today, and there is a tendency in the EU to expand intermediary liability by imposing obligation on online platforms to tackle illegal hate speech. However, these reforms are again criticized as they could lead to erosion of the EU legal framework as well as privatization of law enforcement through algorithmic tools. Those critical issues relate to the central questions of whether intermediaries should be liable for user-generated illegal hate speech at all and, if so, how should they fulfill these liabilities? Based on the analysis of the different basic standpoints of cyberliberalists and cyberpaternalists on the internet regulation as well as the arguments of proponents and opponents of the intermediary liability exemptions, especially the debates over factual impracticality and legal restraints, impact on internet innovation and the chilling effect on freedom of speech in the case that intermediaries bear liabilities for illegal third-party content, the paper argues that the arguments for intermediary liability exemptions are not any more tenable or plausible in the web 3.0 era. The outdated intermediary immunity doctrine needs to be reformed and amended. Furthermore, intermediaries are becoming the new governors of online speech and platforms now have the power to curtail online hate speech. Thus, the attention should turn to the appropriate design of legal responsibilities of intermediaries. The possible suggestions could be the following three points: Imposing liability on intermediaries for illegal hate speech requires national law and international human rights norms as the outer boundary; openness, transparency and accountability as internal constraints; balance of multi-interests and involvement of multi-stakeholders in internet governance regime.     

Homosexuality as Defamation: A Proposal for the Use of the “Right-Thinking Minds” Approach in the Development of Modern Jurisprudence

False imputations of homosexuality have long been considered by courts to be defamatory per se, but many jurisdictions are beginning to revisit the issues surrounding homosexuality and defamation in the wake of a national debate over gay rights. This article examines whether courts should abandon false imputations of homosexuality as per se defamation and concludes that, at a minimum such statements should no longer be defamatory per se and further provides courts with a framework to go a step further and hold that such statements hold no defamatory meaning.     

The Normative Foundations of Defamatory Meaning

This paper assesses normative arguments regarding four views about defamatory meaning. The moralised view holds that a statement about a person is defamatory if and only if we ought to think less of that person if the statement is true. The nonmoralised view holds that a statement is defamatory if and only if people in fact think less of the subject on hearing the statement. A third - the dual view - can be split into two versions. The first version holds that a statement is defamatory if and only if it satisfies either the moralised or non-moralised views. The second version holds that statements satisfying either view can be defamatory, but they ought to be considered fundamentally different forms of personal defamation, with different remedies, defences and conditions of liability attached. Both the moralised and non-moralised views are rejected because they fail to acknowledge instrumental and intrinsic reputational value respectively. The first version of the dual view is rejected because it compromises the expressive value of defamation, implausibly suggests that truth should be a general defence and fails to recognise that different objections apply to the moralised and nonmoralised views. The upshot is that we ought to accept the second version of the dual view.     

Information Conduits or Content Developers? Determining Whether News Portals Should Enjoy Blanket Immunity from Defamation Suits

News portals should be held to the same standard of liability for defamation as other news media. Internet service providers (ISPs) enjoy blanket immunity from liability for defamation under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, while information content providers (ICPs) might not. Some courts have indicated, however, that a defendant who participates in developing third-party content should be classified as an ICP and thus be held liable. Confusion over the difference between an ISP and an ICP is applied to the case of news portals. This study investigates to what extent news portals should enjoy immunity from liability for defamation. To determine a news portal's exposure to liability, a continuum of involvement is proposed as a standard in which liability is based on a defendant's actions and not on the medium employed. A defendant's involvement with third-party content can be classified under the four levels of the continuum, which can guide courts in deciding whether a defendant is liable. Congress should amend Section 230 to incorporate the continuum and allow courts discretion in determining whether a defendant is immune from liability.     

英国2013诽谤法对ISP的最新规定及对我国的启示

2013年英国颁布了诽谤法修正案,其第5条对ISP进行了有针对性的立法,以ISP是否对发布的内容有影响或控制为标准,将ISP分为两类,并适用不同的责任构成,将通知即删除原则成文化,同时制定了明确的适用的规则。其总体方向是在坚持传统的基础上,确保法律与时俱进并且适用;在平衡言论自由与名誉权的基础上,寻求在最大程度上保护ISP而不是承担责任。英国2013诽谤法使我们从现实合理性方面审视我国网络诽谤立法及ISP现状,据此提出《侵权责任法》第36条第3款的修改意见及我国将来的网络诽谤立法或司法适用的一些基本原则。     

Rethinking the notion of hosting in the aftermath of Delfi: Shifting from liability to responsibility?

Liability of Internet intermediaries for a third-party content is a complex topic, especially with regards to the storage of illegal or harmful postings offered by portals. The E-Commerce Directive offered a liberal framework for handling such cases, provided that a hosting service provider has not played an active role in content management. Being passive turned out to be the key precondition for immunity under safe harbour provisions. Yet, after the Delfi ruling the legal landscape has changed radically. Although the judgment of the Strasbourg tribunal has been dismissed in some jurisdictions as an error or one-off case, the truth is that it took into account acquis communautaire and imposed liability on the news portal, which followed the guidelines of Google France and eBay rulings. Given the lack of predictability of the current legal framework, the aim of this contribution is to offer a deep-dive into the notion of hosting from a technical perspective in order to better understand why Articles 14–15 of the E-Commerce Directive may require a re-examination. It is also submitted that portals and other online service providers relying on a broad construction of safe harbours should be entitled to Good Samaritan protection akin to section 230 of the American Communications Decency Act in order not to hold them liable for being active in fighting hate speech and other forms of illegal and harmful conduct.     

Re-Defining Defamation: Psychological Sense of Community in the Age of the Internet

In the era of traditional media, courts typically relied upon geographic constraints, including where a plaintiff lived or worked, to determine the appropriate community in defamation cases. The rise of the Internet has dramatically changed society – easily and immediately linking users across geography while allowing the rapid spread of information through a variety of channels that pose a challenge to the traditional media model centered around editorial judgment and professional ethics. Thanks in part to its global reach, the Internet has allowed users to engage in both business and social relationships around the world. Because of this, a person's need for a good reputation can no longer be confined solely to location. As a result, this article argues that courts must begin to evaluate other factors when determining relevant community in online defamation cases, positing that courts should utilize factors associated with psychological sense of community theory.     

Search engines and Internet defamation: Of publication and legal responsibility

When the Internet user keys a search term and clicks “enter”, a series of snippets, images and html links will appear typically running into several web pages. In the case of Autocomplete suggestions, the result appearing on the bar changes with each keystroke even before the user clicks “enter”. As a result, in the course of finding search results from the original search term, the user is constantly provided with suggestions of other search terms. The search results and Autocomplete suggestions may be defamatory of individuals and businesses by associating them with dishonest and improper activities or conduct. Should search engines be regarded as a publisher of such defamatory search results and/or Autocomplete suggestions? What is the appropriate legal approach for establishing search engine responsibility in such instances? The paper considers the above questions by reference to case precedents drawn primarily from common law jurisdictions and commentaries on the liability of search engines and other Internet intermediaries as well as policy rationales and considerations.     

网络诽谤行为的法律规制及其完善

利用互联网全新媒体实施诽谤与传统诽谤相比较具有新的特点,寻求网络言论自由与保护名誉权、隐私权的平衡成为了网络时代更为突出的问题．网络诽谤责任主体具有多元性。网络诽谤法律规制应从适度区分公众人物与非公众人物,赋予新闻媒体的合理报道权,适度规定网络服务提供者的相应责任,实际损害赔偿、精神损害赔偿与惩罚性赔偿相结合等角度加以完善．     

物权法定原则

物权法定原则决定了物权法的基本性质与特征,也严格地限制了当事人在创设新型物权、改变既有物权之内容等方面的意思自由。物权法定原则的内涵是指物权的种类、内容、效力以及公示方法由法律规定,原则上不能由法律之外的规范性文件进行规定,也不能允许当事人自由创设物权的种类以及确定物权的内容、效力和公示方法。作者比较了物权法定模式的表述方式和基本功能,并认为我国物权法中物权法定中的“法”应当被主要限定为法律;司法解释应当具有一定的创设物权的功能;判例不能创设物权。当事人关于物权设定的约定违反物权法定原则的法律后果,应当根据不同的情况来确定。     

Internet and social networks: freedom of expression in the digital age

New technologies have revolutionised the way we communicate and the meaning of freedom of expression. As the Internet increasingly represents a key tool for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of expression, providing universal access should therefore be a priority for countries in order to achieve development goals. The Internet and the proliferation of online social networks have an important impact on privacy, forcing a re-evaluation of the limits to the right to freedom of expression. The author examines the issue of liability of Internet providers and analyses criminal prosecutions in the context of online social networks. As liability for comments made through online social networks becomes more common, questions arise as to what is deemed offensive and whether prosecution should take place in all cases. The article tries to provide answers to those questions through an analysis of case law from various Commonwealth jurisdictions.     

信息网络传播权侵害中的通知与必要措施规则

美国版权法第512条首创的是针对网络接入、系统缓存、信息存储空间、信息定位工具等四类网络服务提供者的通知与必要措施规则。我国《信息网络传播权保护条例》仅不完整地移植和借鉴了美国版权法第512条首创的通知与必要措施规则中的通知与删除规则,从而导致信息存储空间、搜索链接服务提供者之外的网络服务提供者与著作权人利益的失衡。《侵权责任法》第36条第2款恢复了通知与必要措施规则的本来面目,纠正了《信息网络传播权保护条例》的缺陷,并且创造性地将通知与必要措施规则扩大适用于所有网络服务提供者。在涉及侵害信息网络传播权纠纷案件中,除了信息存储空间服务提供者、搜索链接服务提供者的责任规则以及有关通知和反通知的法定要件,应当优先适用《信息网络传播权保护条例》之外,其他种类网络技术服务提供者的责任规则,应当优先适用《侵权责任法》第36条第2款。     

浅议涉外网络名誉侵权案件的管辖权问题

涉外网络名誉侵权行为的实施地不易确定,损害结果地为数众多,传统民事管辖权的规则面临挑战,目前国际上在理论和司法实践中存在着不同的观点和做法。我国立法也没有明确的规定。针对网络名誉侵权行为的特点,网络名誉侵权案件应由侵权行为地法院或被告住所地法院管辖,侵权行为地包括实施被诉侵权行为的网络服务器、计算机终端等设备所在地和受害人受损害的结果地,损害结果地是指诽谤言论的传播地,同时又是原告的住所地或居所地或工商营业所所在地或法人的营业地,如果侵权行为地和损害结果地不一致,由原告选择管辖法院。     

“Error But Without Malice” in Defamation of Public Officials: The Value of Free Expression in International Human Rights Law

Government officials in various parts of the world use defamation to silence critics, but defamation liability may curtail freedom of expression on topics of public interest and undermine human rights generally. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression unless a state can show need to protect individual reputation and acts proportionally. In its adjudication of complaints for violations of Article 19, and in its General Comment 34, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has crafted the principle that defamation liability may not be imposed if an erroneous statement about a public official was made in “error but without malice.” Although soft law, General Comment 34 represents the committee's most compelling articulation of the values animating freedom of expression in international human rights law, and chief among the values is the role played by free expression to promote realization of all human rights.     

Balancing in Light of the Purposes of Copyright: Whether Video Music Lessons Constitute Copyright Infringement

Faced with diminished sources of revenue, school systems in recent years have cut funding for music education. Looking for alternative ways to learn about music, budding musicians have turned to the Internet. On YouTube and other Web sites, visitors can view thousands of instructional videos on how to play popular songs, complex genres, and a seemingly unlimited variety of musical techniques. Despite altruistic motivations, creators of video music lessons routinely use copyrighted content during lessons. This article argues that the defense of fair use should protect the creators of video music lessons from liability in a copyright infringement lawsuit. Specifically, the author argues that it is the purpose of copyright law to promote knowledge and that video music lessons further this objective.     

Mapping Defamation Defences

The general neglect of tort defences is most significant in defamation actions. This paper attempts to reduce to a few guiding principles the numerous, and apparently unrelated, doctrines recognised as defences by the law of defamation. Defining the cause of action as an injury to the claimant's reputation, it argues that they fall into three classes: (i) defences which exclude unlawfulness because the injury was inflicted in pursuance of a right or liberty of the defendant; (ii) defences which exclude blameworthiness because the defendant was not at fault for causing the injury; (iii) defences which relieve the defendant of liability despite the injury being both non iure and negligent: this group, not being underpinned by recognised principles, deserves particular scrutiny. The rule of repetition should be qualified by recognition of a defence of ‘warranted republication’; the remainder should be abolished, being an anachronistic hangover from the old requirement of malice.     

The online defamation maze: are we finding a way out?

The main purpose of this paper is to examine the efficacy of the first decision that explored online defamation (as opposed to offline defamation) delivered by the Supreme Court of Japan. A discussion of the future implications of the case is then undertaken. The paper supports the First Instance (the Tokyo District Court) decision and its approach, and argues that such an approach might have provided greater implications for the future. The author also argues that the Tokyo District Court seems to have taken a more reflective view on the fluidity of online defamation and the nature of the online environment, and shows a degree of willingness to accept and incorporate such a nature. The author concludes that the Tokyo District Court's approach, although it could be seen as rather radical and extreme, seems to be more persuasive than that of the Supreme Court. It also submits that the court might have brought a more balanced and healthy outcome for the beneficiaries, including not only the claimants, the defendants, but also society as a whole. It is the case that innocent internet users can potentially be both the passive and active recipients of the information (i.e. comments posted on webpage). Before a detailed analysis and examination of the case is undertaken, a brief outline of how Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with the traditional form of defamation (i.e. offline defamation) is provided as background.     

Defamation in cyberspace: A Japanese perspective

The aim of this paper is two-fold: first, to introduce how Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with the case of on-line defamation, which is arguably one of the most acute problems in modern society, and second, to critically examine the efficacy of such an approach. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in on-line defamation (as oppose to off-line defamation) will be introduced as an exemplar of the way Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with such an acute problem. A first step will be to provide, by way of background, a brief overview of how defamation in a conventional sense has been treated by the Japanese legal system. The second step will be to outline how the Japanese jurisdiction has dealt with on-line defamation, that is to say, to what extent the Japanese court regulates on-line defamatory comments made by the ordinary people. A third step will be to examine the efficacy of such an approach, and the final step will be to examine whether the UK court can learn a lesson from the Japanese jurisdiction. The author will draw upon Japanese jurisprudence, in order to consider whether a valuable lesson might be offered to the UK jurisdiction.     

奸淫幼女构成犯罪应以明知为前提 --为一个司法解释辩护

在严格责任与罪过责任分立的基础上,奸淫幼女构成犯罪必须以明知为前提,这样才能在保护幼女和保护被告人的合法权益之间求得一种法治视野下的平衡.应当摈弃"应当知道"的传统提法,而把奸淫幼女的明知分为确切知道和推定知道两种.从最高法院关于奸淫幼女问题的司法解释出发,我国现行的刑事司法解释体制及其形式应该逐渐由抽象的司法解释过渡到个案性质的司法解释,再进一步过渡到判例制度.