Broadband News
News, views and analysis
Search engines aren't defamers under UK law
21 Jul 2009 | 19.52 Europe/London
The Internet may not be the "final frontier," but it does at times seem like a "frontier" in a classic sense - new and, while the powers that be attempt to wrangle some sort of grip on it, outside the bounds of common law. That means there's a lot of grey areas - especially in a British legal system that relies heavily on precedents. Now, after Google won a hitherto unique court case, we have a new one.
Distance learning company Metropolitan International Schools (MIS) had accused Google of defamation - a crime where the accused is guilty under proven innocent. (Defamation refers to words that harm, or may be perceived to harm, the reputation or business interests of a party - in this case MIS.) For a journalist there are various established defences that could get you off the hook but for a search engine it was unchartered territory; prior to this, Google hadn't had to defend itself against a defamation claim anywhere.
However, the judge made things easy for Google, setting a legal standard that could mean there'll be no further cases of this kind again in the UK. Mr Justice Eady - famous for his ruling in the case of motorsport chief Max Mosley - said that the site "merely ... played the role of a facilitator" and therefore has no direct responsibility for the content it archives and displays in its search results. By way of explanation, the judge offered his court a simple analogy:-
Looking at this analogy, it's unclear whether the judgement could actually protect other "catalogue compilers" like torrent sites The Pirate Bay or Mininova from prosecution in the UK.
The ruling is reminiscent of the defamation defence formerly known as "innocent publication," which protects newspaper printers that are unknowingly involved in publishing defamatory material. In the online sphere this has translated into the "innocent dissemination" defence, safeguarding websites or forums that unknowingly publish or host defamatory material. Yet it has been established that those websites or forums must remove the defamatory material if asked by the defamed party to do so. Under the Google ruling, this doesn't appear to be a condition that applies to search engines.
Google of course welcomed the judgement, which brings the UK closer to US legislation. "We are pleased with this result, which reinforces the principle that search engines aren't responsible for content that is published on third-party websites," it said via a statement. The Mountain View firm says it wants any complaints to be addressed to the websites where the defamatory material is published in the first place. Now it just has a hearing with the EU over its books deal to worry about, which has been set this week for September 7.
Further details at [The Telegraph] and [ZDNet]
Distance learning company Metropolitan International Schools (MIS) had accused Google of defamation - a crime where the accused is guilty under proven innocent. (Defamation refers to words that harm, or may be perceived to harm, the reputation or business interests of a party - in this case MIS.) For a journalist there are various established defences that could get you off the hook but for a search engine it was unchartered territory; prior to this, Google hadn't had to defend itself against a defamation claim anywhere.
However, the judge made things easy for Google, setting a legal standard that could mean there'll be no further cases of this kind again in the UK. Mr Justice Eady - famous for his ruling in the case of motorsport chief Max Mosley - said that the site "merely ... played the role of a facilitator" and therefore has no direct responsibility for the content it archives and displays in its search results. By way of explanation, the judge offered his court a simple analogy:-
If a scholar wishes to check for references to his research topic, he may well consult the library catalogue. On doing so, he may find that there are some potentially relevant books in one of the bays and make his way there to see whether he can make use of the content. It is hardly realistic to attribute responsibility for the content of those books to the compiler of the catalogue.
Looking at this analogy, it's unclear whether the judgement could actually protect other "catalogue compilers" like torrent sites The Pirate Bay or Mininova from prosecution in the UK.
The ruling is reminiscent of the defamation defence formerly known as "innocent publication," which protects newspaper printers that are unknowingly involved in publishing defamatory material. In the online sphere this has translated into the "innocent dissemination" defence, safeguarding websites or forums that unknowingly publish or host defamatory material. Yet it has been established that those websites or forums must remove the defamatory material if asked by the defamed party to do so. Under the Google ruling, this doesn't appear to be a condition that applies to search engines.
Google of course welcomed the judgement, which brings the UK closer to US legislation. "We are pleased with this result, which reinforces the principle that search engines aren't responsible for content that is published on third-party websites," it said via a statement. The Mountain View firm says it wants any complaints to be addressed to the websites where the defamatory material is published in the first place. Now it just has a hearing with the EU over its books deal to worry about, which has been set this week for September 7.
Further details at [The Telegraph] and [ZDNet]