The Bermuda Islands blow ‘sweet & sour’ on employers’ liability for Internet libel

The Bermudian Supreme Court (at first instance) recently ruled in Bermuda Restaurants Limited (t/a “Chopsticks”) v. Jonathan Daspin and ConvergEx Global Markets Ltd. (Civil Jurisdiction 2008: No. 134 (to be reported)) on the issue of whether an employer (here, a company) should be held liable for an allegedly libellous email publication by its employee, the managing director. The Judge was asked by the employer company to determine two issues of law which exposed the company and which centred on its vicarious liability for its employee's actions, including whether the use of the company's email system, during working hours, made it complicit in the publication. The Court held, applying principles of English and Canadian law, that the company was not vicariously liable and by extension that it was not the email's publisher.     

Libel: Its Purpose and Reform

Discussion of libel often fails to define defamation law's purpose and thus properly to assess its value. This article argues that defamation's purpose relates to fundamental human interests in sociality, directly linked to important aspects of human health and well‐being. Protecting such interests is arguably required by the right to private life under ECHR article 8 and should not count as a violation of the right to freedom of speech. Some current reform proposals are criticised as failing to appreciate the importance of protecting sociality. ‘Business’ libel, however, often protects not sociality but purely economic interests. The article therefore argues that the protection of libel law, as opposed to that offered by malicious falsehood and the economic torts, should be withdrawn from purely economic reputation, starting with removing the rights of corporations to sue in defamation, a position compatible with the ECtHR's decision in Karako v Hungary.     

Twitter thou doeth?

Twitter, which started as a micro-blogging website, is the third most popular social network next to Facebook and My Space. Twitter is increasingly becoming primary means of communication among individuals and businesses. It is now being used in courts for issuing injunctions. However, Twitter “tweets” are also potential litigation minefield for lawyers, businesses and employers. As a social-networking tool, the use of Twitter can raise a variety of legal issues such as the right of publicity, breach of confidentiality, privacy infringement, fraud trademark infringement, copyright infringement, reverse username hijacking, among others.     

网络诽谤行为的刑事司法认定

网络诽谤行为与传统诽谤行为既有一致性又有新特性,对网络诽谤行为的认定应当谨慎对待。诽谤罪是《刑法》上少数几个亲告罪之一,厘清诽谤行为的罪与非罪、诽谤罪的自诉与公诉的界限,有利于进一步对网络诽谤行为准确的定罪量刑,从而保护公民言论自由,维护网络社会的和谐。