Interpret this

[chaos]

Defamation legislation gives a defence where the 'publisher' (the blogging host) has no knowledge of the defamatory remarks or no reason to suspect the remarks have been made.  This gives some protection to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) but very little comfort where the blogger has read and accepted comments on his/her blogging pages.  A prudent blogger must exercise editorial control over comments to avoid this liability as a publisher of libel.

[BB]

Ok, the way I understand it, at least in the US, is that ISPs, Search Engines, etc.... are immune from prosecution. Individual Posters, Bloggers, aren't sometimes, but the plaintiff better have deep pockets and a bit of luck. This is especially true if it is from an anonymous poster because there are a bunch of burdens of proof that have to be met before you can involve the message board owner in a libel case.

Message boards usually use - http://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 as a defense in the States.

Second article with a bit more - http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 .

[chaos]

Ok, the way I understand it, at least in the US, is that ISPs, Search Engines, etc.... are immune from prosecution. Individual Posters, Bloggers, aren't sometimes, but the plaintiff better have deep pockets and a bit of luck. This is especially true if it is from an anonymous poster because there are a bunch of burdens of proof that have to be met before you can involve the message board owner in a libel case.

Message boards usually use - http://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 as a defense in the States.

Second article with a bit more - http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 .

So it's a pathetic attempt at some sort of intimidation towards board owners. Gotcha.

[dan18]

The ips can claim no liability in any case where someone was slandered by a person using their service but the person making the comments can be liable ...so much for freedom of speech

[Primemuscle]

Defamation legislation gives a defence where the 'publisher' (the blogging host) has no knowledge of the defamatory remarks or no reason to suspect the remarks have been made.  This gives some protection to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) but very little comfort where the blogger has read and accepted comments on his/her blogging pages.  A prudent blogger must exercise editorial control over comments to avoid this liability as a publisher of libel.

 

I read this too. Seems a bit convoluted and wishy-washy. Since it's law, it has to be tested in court to see how effective it is. Do you know that it was very recently amended?

[chaos]

I read this too. Seems a bit convoluted and wishy-washy. Since it's law, it has to be tested in court to see how effective it is. Do you know that it was very recently amended?

Link?

[Las Vegas]

The freaks behind MSM will keep at it until actual disclaimers are to be placed (by law) on all information that doesn't agree with them.  Not kidding.  This, here, is another way to pressure the little guy who has his own little bit of media.  To cause him to get in line. 

I understand the reasoning behind it, as it's claimed, but MSM is busy trying to make one message and this is just a way toward that.  MSM doesn't care about the individual.