It was reported recently that web firms could now be held liable for libellous postings by users/visitors if they fail to respond to complaints quickly enough. The ruling was part of a judgment in Google’s favor but is significant as Google, Facebook, Twitter and other websites that rely on the public for material insist they have no responsibility for their content. They could face damages claims for millions of pounds if they do not swiftly delete defamatory postings.
This is a result of a court appeal made by a law student, Payam Tamiz, who back in 2011 sued Google over smears on its Blogger.com service that falsely labelled Mr Tamiz a drug dealer and a thief. He failed to overturn an earlier judgment in Google’s favour and faces tens of thousands of pounds in costs. His lawyers attempted to pin liability for the false claims about him on the web giant, which hosted the “London Muslim” blog on which they were posted.
However, the Court of Appeal ruling did confirm websites must act on complaints reasonably quickly to maintain their status as mere “facilitators” rather than publishers, a principle that legal experts suggested was eroded in the original judgment.
Lord Justice Richards, sitting with the Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson and Lord Justice Sullivan, ruled that Google’s Blogger.com service was a “notice board” enabling people to express their views.
However, he said Google had a responsibility to remove the smears once Mr Tamiz complained. If a website ignores claims it is hosting defamatory content, it becomes a publisher in the eyes of the law, said Lord Justice Richards.
“Even if Google should properly be seen as a facilitator, the mere provider of a gigantic notice board on which others published defamatory material, in my judgment it must also at least be arguable that at some point after notification became liable for continued publication of the material complained of,” said the judge.
But as much as we don’t want abusive or misleading information left up on any of the social networking sites we use for any longer than the second it was put up. Are we using our frustration and anger to quickly point the finger and not think rationally about what procedures, resources and time may realistically be involved in dealing with such complaints? As quick as it is to submit a post on these sites, it isn’t necessarily as easy to just remove a comment because someone says they don’t like it. Social Networking sites may say that the sheer number of complaints they get every day warrants considerable attention to each and everyone so that the right measures are taken and this would inevitably take time. But time can be detrimental as the longer a negative post stays up the more damage to a person it may cause.
Should social media sites invest more in improving the reaction time of post complaints raise by their users? Surely they can adopt a live chat system where say for example Facebook allow users to click on a live chat to speak to a customer support representative and have their case looked at immediately and maybe the comment hidden from public view until the case is reviewed, a decision is made and the case closed. Surely even the user will at least feel that they have been treated fairly and such a 1-to-1 engagement would make a user feel a lot more re-assured that though procedures may take a while they are not being ignored and their case is of concern to the social network site?
“Google and other web superpowers have successfully and profitably fostered “a powerful myth” that they are purely passive service providers online” – Mr Tamiz’s Barrister
