Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
We are writing to ask that you introduce urgent reforms in the Government’s proposed draft
Defamation Bill to protect open discussion on the internet.
The English law of defamation is having a disproportionate, chilling effect on online writers, e-
communities and web hosts:
• The libel laws have not been updated to address the rise of online publication. The current
multiple publication rule, dating back to 1849, defines every download as a publication and
a potential new cause of action.
• Internet service providers can be held liable for comments they host and therefore are
inclined to take down material or websites even before the writer or publisher has been made
aware of a complaint. Such intermediaries usually have no access to the background or
relevant facts and should not be expected to play judge and jury in determining whether a
writer’s material is defamatory or not. This is a decision that can and should only be made
by the direct parties involved.
• Online blogs and forums are available around the world and there appear, in practice, to be
few restrictions on material published substantially on matters and concerning parties and
reputations elsewhere being the subject of legal action in English courts.
• The Internet is used for publication by millions of ordinary citizens for whom the current
defences to an action for defamation have not been developed.
We ask that the Government’s draft Bill provide the following protection for discussion on the
Internet:
1. ISPs and forum hosts – ‘intermediaries’ - should not be forced to take down material without a
determination by a court or competent authority that the content is defamatory. The claimant should
in the first instance approach the author rather than an uninvolved intermediary.
2. There should be a single publication rule and a limitation period of one year from original
publication.
3. Claimants in libel law should demonstrate that there has been a substantial tort in the jurisdiction
in which they bring proceedings.
4. There should be a public interest defence in cases where the material is on a matter of public
interest and the author has acted in accordance with expectations of the medium or forum.
Signed
Emma Ascroft, Director, Public & Social Policy, Yahoo! UK & Ireland