Internet service providers — beware blogs
In Payam Tamiz v Google Inc, a case that considered an internet service provider’s (ISP’s) liability for potentially defamatory comments posted on a blog, the Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment that gives rise to real concerns for blogging platform providers.
The defendant, Google Inc (based in the US), operated a blogging platform. In April 2011, Google’s platform was used to host the blog ‘London Muslim’, which posted anonymous comments about the claimant, Payam Tamiz, a Muslim and Conservative Party member. On 29 June 2011, Mr Tamiz wrote to Google, alleging that some of the comments were defamatory. Google received the letter in early July. On 11 August 2011, Google referred the complaint to the blogger and on 14 August 2011 the blogger removed the comments. Mr Tamiz sought to pursue a defamation claim against Google in the UK based on publication of the comments. In March 2012, the High Court declined jurisdiction, and Mr Tamiz appealed.
Several important issues stood to be decided before the Court of Appeal. The first of these was whether Google was a ‘publisher’ of the comments at common law or under the Defamation Act 1996. The court held that, in relation to the period before notification to Google of the comments and complaint, Google did not have sufficient knowledge, control or active distribution of the comments to be regarded as a publisher. However, in relation to the period after notification, the situation was analogous to the case of Byrne v Dean. In that case, allegedly defamatory words were posted on a notice board in a golf club and allowed to remain there for several days. Having allowed the notice to remain, the owners of the club were held to have published the words. The Court of Appeal concluded that the time taken by Google to procure removal of the posts in question was so long as to give rise to a real possibility that Google was a publisher…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
Landlords must protect tenants’ deposits and provide tenants with prescribed information, regardless of when the tenancy commenced and when the deposit was received.
In the Yam Seng case, the court was willing to imply a duty of good faith to give business efficacy to a commercial contract. Since that case, the law has been somewhat uncertain.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.