This is the second ZGram on "Bad news for ISPs" and, consequently, Internetters. Its content comes from Internet Freedom, one of the leading cyber liberties campaigns in the UK. What is happening in Great Britain is very similar to what is happening in Australia, as reported yesterday - and, in no small measure, in Canada.
The Internet Freedom web site is at http://www.netfreedom.org. They can be contacted on 00 44 (0) 171 681 1559 or emailed at campaign@netfreedom.org.
Here is their press release.
MEDIA RELEASE-IMMEDIATE 11 June 1999
ISPS NO LONGER INNOCENT DISSEMINATORS
Internet Freedom said today that the latest development in the Godfrey versus Demon Internet libel case was a disaster for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Net users and free speech.
This week the deadline for Demon Internet's pre-trial appeal passed. Now, according to UK Law, ISPs will be unable to rely on the 'innocent dissemination' defence once someone alleges that they are carrying libellous material.
The case, which is due to go trial later this year, is the first in the UK to rule on Internet libel.
Demon's first line of defence hinged on pleading that, unlike book publishers, Internet Service Providers were not liable for material available through them. Since they did not select material on the basis of content, Demon had argued that they were merely 'innocent disseminators' and could not be held responsible for it. The trial judge ruled against this and Demon chose not to appeal against his decision.
This unchallenged decision has devastating consequences for free speech. Under UK libel Law the onus is on the defendant to prove innocence. The Internet, unlike print media allows for an unprecedented 'right to reply'. Offering these opportunities, it is remarkable that British Law should insist that ISPs are responsible for other Internet users' postings.
As ISPs now have their role as Net police enshrined in Law, the consequences will be severe. If a person does not like someone's newsgroup posting on the Net, they can simply send an email to any of Britain's 300 ISPs asking for the posting to be removed. If a single one doesn't remove the posting: they can sue.
Daniel Lloyd, lawyer and legal advisor to Internet Freedom said: "This decision is bad news for ISPs. It means that in future a litigant need only so much as suggest that a comment is libellous and the defence of innocent dissemination is withdrawn from the ISP."
Chris Ellison, founder of Internet Freedom, commented:
"If ISPs are forced to remove all material which is alleged to be libellous or defamatory then online debate, chat rooms, and controversial websites will become a thing of the past. British Law now demands that ISPs remove controversial material that anyone suggests is libellous. This will be a disaster for Net users who will be denied access to information, for ISPs as they will have to police the Net, and for free speech not just in the UK but from around the globe".
For further comment call Chris Ellison on 00 44 (0) 956 129 518 <end>
You really have to ask yourself why 300 businesses in the UK could not find one spokesman or CEO to pick up the phone to call a few colleagues, hire a competent attorney, and at least intervene as "friends of the court" in their own interest. This is going to cost Britain dearly. What fools they are - to simply throw freedom away!
Ingrid
====
Thought for the Day:
"The American Jewish Committee utilizes every susceptible non-Jewish organization in its propaganda drives. Every medium of communication - radio, press, magazines, motion pictures, television - are pressed into service by one device or another. Its chapters are stimulated to feverish action and 'competent professional' field staffs are used 'to activate community-wide efforts' among special interest organizations 'such as church groups, women's groups, labor groups etc.'
"Those who understand and oppose AJC and ADL activities are marked down as 'rabble rousers.' Similar to the 'book stifling' technique of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith is the 'Quarantine Treatment' of the AJC. This device was 'developed by a member of the AJC staff' and requires the cooperation of newspapers, radio etc. That its application is as un-American as 'book stifling' goes without saying. It is 'effective' in 'handling rabble rousers,' declares the AJC, as it deprives 'them of their life-line, publicity.'"
(Tenney Reports on World Zionism. Author: Senator Jack B. Tenney ©1953 Publisher: Standard Publications )