CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘Defamation’ Category

High court judge: Data protection isn’t defamation substitute: “

Act does not have your back

The Data Protection Act should not be a backup plan in failed defamation cases, a High Court judge has said. Mr Justice Eady has rejected a claim that an allegedly libellous statement was also a breach of the privacy law.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

ADD moves to ban Google sites for defaming Atatürk

13 April 2009, Monday, TODAY’S ZAMAN WITH WIRES, İSTANBUL

The Atatürkist Thought Association (ADD) has moved to block access to Google Sites due to content it deems insulting to Atatürk, the founder of Turkey, and the concept of Turkishness.

The association recently applied to the Ankara Public Prosecutor’s Office to ban Google Sites, saying several pages affiliated with the famous search engine insult Atatürk and the concept of Turkishness. It is illegal in Turkey to insult Atatürk, a revered figure whose portrait still hangs in nearly all government offices almost 70 years after his death in 1938.

A petition submitted by the neo-nationalist association to the prosecutor’s office read that the owners or founders of the Web sites in question were not found, adding a notice on the bottom of the sites indicated that they were powered by Google Sites. ‘For this reason, we request that an investigation be launched into the issue and necessary precautions be taken,’ the petition read.

Turkey has become the focus of harsh criticism due to an increasing number of Web sites blocked by the government. Web sites in Turkey are most often banned on the grounds that they insult Atatürk, contain vulgarity, enable gambling or promote suicide.

Many sites have also been banned for crimes covered under the Internet Security Law, but a number of sites are banned for no apparent reason. Among the Web sites frequently banned in the country is the popular video-sharing portal YouTube, which was first banned by a controversial court decision in May 2008 for broadcasting videos deemed insulting to Atatürk and the concept of Turkishness. Though the ban was lifted several times, access to YouTube was blocked over and over again by different Turkish courts for the very same reason.

In the meantime, Berivan Zeren — a female teacher at İstanbul’s Kadriye Moroğlu High School — was fired by the superintendent of the school due to ‘her hostile acts against the memory of Atatürk.’

According to a report published by the Taraf daily yesterday, Zeren distributed course-related documents to her students on democracy and human rights. A section of the documents was set aside for Atatürk and said all acts in the school needn’t be supported by a saying of Atatürk. A group of Zeren’s colleagues took the documents to the superintendent and complained that she was engaging in anti-Atatürk acts.

Zeren was fired by the superintendent, Abdülselam Demir, on March 13.

‘Ceaseless liability’ for internet libel is not a barrier to free speech, rules ECHR: “Publishers’ indefinite liability for defamatory material in their online archives is not a restriction on their rights to free speech, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled. The decision backs a 160-year-old rule of English law.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

European Journalism Centre: Times fails to overturn ‘internet publication rule’ in court case

[European Court of Human Rights] Newspapers will continue to be sued multiple times over the same website story after the Times lost a case in the European court of human rights Tuesday. In a decision condemned by media lawyers, the court rejected arguments in favour of a ’single publication rule’, prevalent in the US, where defendants can only be sued once for publishing a defamatory statement. The case was brought by the Times newspaper after an alleged Russian mafia boss sued the paper for a second time for libel over internet articles. He had previously sued the Times for the same articles printed in the newspaper. The Times argued that the ‘internet publication rule’ under English law breached the right to freedom of expression. The internet publication rule allows for a libel action each time someone accesses archived material on the internet. Anthony Lester QC, representing the Times, had argued for a common international rule about internet publication. ‘An article might be read in 100 different countries with 100 different libel laws, giving rise to multiple liability with no clear guidance on how long is too long,’ he said. However, the court declined to set a clear time period after which archived articles would stop giving rise to libel claims. (The Guardian)

Google on trial over Italian ‘defamation’ vid: “

Execs face jail time for Turin teenagers’ taunt

The Privacy Trial of the Century is already waving jail time at three current Google execs and its former chief financial officer. And now there’s an added complaint against the company itself.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Blogger can’t sue over comment, rules High Court: “

Didn’t like it, shoulda deleted it

A man who was criticised in the comments section of his own blog cannot sue for defamation because he did not delete the comment when he discovered it, the High Court has said. The Court said that the man consented to the comment’s publication.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Blogger who didn’t delete comment cannot sue over it, says High Court: “A man who was criticised in the comments section of his own blog cannot sue for defamation because he did not delete the comment when he discovered it, the High Court has said. The Court said that the man consented to the comment’s publication.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Frank Fisher: Freedom of speech on the internet should be protected

Out of context, it would be easy to dismiss culture secretary Andy Burnham’s attack on the ‘dangerous’ internet as just another junior minister grabbing at headlines in a traditionally dead news period. However, set alongside Labour’s existing and proposed limits on free speech online, it signals potentially worrying extensions to these restrictions and, perhaps more significantly, a disturbing attitude that sees censorship as entirely natural and necessary. Burnham talks of ‘harmful’ content – content, harmful? How? Amid all his talk of websites imposing age ratings he also plainly states that ‘There is content that should just not be available to be viewed’.

Not by kids you’ll note, just a big flat no! This isn’t a guy in the pub talking, this is a government minister who says he knows what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to read and see. Well sorry, Andy, while we might discuss the possibility of you deciding that for children, you certainly don’t get to decide that for me. The temptation is simply to brush the arrogance away with an angry wave, and figure nothing will come of it. That would be dangerous.

As we see in Australia, just because a policy is insane, futile, counter-productive and hugely unpopular doesn’t mean it won’t end up being implemented. When Burnham talked of cooperation across the English-speaking world, the Telegraph was a bit lax in failing to raise Australia’s current filtering madness as a discussion point. Nor was Burnham tackled on Labour’s highly controversial criminalisation of ‘extreme pornography’. The anger here and in Australia really should prime the media to question politicians when they suggest censorship is uncontroversial, or that simply passing a law stops it from being ‘censorship’ and turns the gag into something more tolerable. Likewise, when Burnham whines that he can’t let his children access the internet unsupervised, the proper response should be ’so what?’ Either supervise them, install your own filtering software, or let them do as they wish. I limit my children’s access to a white-list I drew up and maintain myself, and it costs nowt. Your own parental failings are not a justification for censoring us, Andy.

Beyond the issue of censorship, the practical problems for an effective system are immense. As an example, is it feasible that every website in the world will adopt a compatible age rating system? Of course not – so any possible filter would work on a white-list basis: approved sites would be passed back to surfers, unrated sites would simply be blocked. Blam, there goes 99% of the web. But let’s assume a slightly brighter system; that in addition to a white-list, internet service providers use smart filtering for unrated sites – as some organisations do today – doing a quick text search to see if banned topics or terms pop up.

Well, how smart is smart? When I first wrote about filtering software more than a decade ago one amusing hiccup present in a couple of commercial programs was a block imposed on scientific sites offering tips on ‘naked eye’ astronomical observations. I talked to a secondary school science teacher earlier this year and his filtered network still blocks him from picking up sites like that. Some progress, eh? In fact, the county-wide filtering his school works through gives access to just 11 white-listed domains. Eleven from a hundred million. I’m sure a national system might push that total. Who knows, the ‘good’ internet might total maybe 3 or 4% of the whole?

Burnham’s supporters will say that compulsion for adults is not an issue – that simply isn’t true. I refer them back to his ‘There is content that should just not be available’ comment. The only solution that will deliver the ’safe’ web for kids is a national white-list adopted by all ISPs. Even a looser system relying on a white-list for under-18s plus the current Cleanfeed model for over-18s will require some kind of authenticated adult login – finally a use for Burnham’s beloved ID cards, eh?

Don’t think that’s far-fetched either – an authenticated login for all internet users was mooted in the European Parliament 10 years ago, and keeps popping back. Similarly in the US influential thinktanks are pushing the idea of a ‘hardened’ internet, secured by, among other things, ‘in-person’ identification at login. When Obama takes office he’ll find this report on his desk. Fancy swiping your ID card past a government-mandated RFID reader to get online?

I’m hoping not, although it’s astonishing how many people seem to want these kinds of controls. The usual cries of ‘paranoia’ will greet this – they’re dwindling though. We now know our internet access is censored using the IWF/Cleanfeed solution – however ineffectual that may be. We also know our government sees free speech online as dangerous – it’s told us so, and promises a new ‘anti-defamation’ consultation paper in the new year to deal with unruly blogs. And we know that certain politically difficult content – and that what’s the beheadings are, Andy, like it or not – is destined for blocking. Finally, we know the supine mainstream media will accept the government line unless forced to challenge it by weight of numbers. And we can also guess that they see the continuing rise of user-generated content as a threat to their own position – and they’re right to think that.

Burnham is no fool – some say Labour simply doesn’t understand the internet, but no, it understand aspects of it only too well. As he says, ‘If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn’t reach’. Well maybe not those who created it, but certainly those who came soon after. And that really bothers you, doesn’t it, Andy? Tough.

2009 will be the year of the War on t’Internet, folks. Pick a side, and stand by your mouse.

(Via guardian.co.uk Comment is free.)

Another interesting article from TechDirt…

(Via Techdirt.)

Singapore Fines The WSJ For Editorials It Considered Contempt Of Court: “The Wall Street Journal is running a story about how it’s been fined by Singaporean courts for two editorials the paper published over the summer. The story notes how nearly every foreign publication distributed in Singapore has been sued in court at one point or another, and the article goes through detailing the specific charges against it by Singapore. Obviously, the WSJ’s story can be seen as biased since they were a party in the lawsuit, but from the description, it sounds like Singapore was upset that the WSJ accurately reported on a defamation lawsuit by a former government official against an opposition party candidate, and later a critical study by the International Bar Association on the rule of law in Singapore. It’s difficult to see how those reports can be said to be ‘contemptuous of the judiciary,’ but in a country that isn’t known for taking criticism well, perhaps it’s not that surprising.

Still, what’s most interesting is that in response to this, the Wall Street Journal has chosen not to publish this particular story about the decision in the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal — though, the story is obviously available online. Apparently the WSJ recognizes, probably accurately, that if they published the story about the decision, where they are somewhat critical of that decision, they would probably be in for yet another ‘contempt’ charge. To some extent, this decision makes you wonder how effective suppression of the press can be going forward. Yes, countries can build filters and block out certain publications, but online content can always be filtered through eventually. The very fact that the WSJ is purposely leaving the editorial out of Asian editions of the paper seems more likely to draw more attention to the story from within Singapore as well, accomplishing exactly the opposite of what the country thinks it’s doing in fining the paper.

Cyber-Rights.Org.TR » Internet: Restricted Access: Internet: Restricted Access: A Critical Assessment of Internet Content Regulation and Censorship in Turkey (Released on 25 November, 2008)

By Dr. Yaman Akdeniz & Dr. Kerem Altıparmak

Published with the support of ‘Freedom of Expression’ Programme of İnsan Hakları Ortak Platformu.

Executive Summary
There may be different approaches to the growth of the Internet in different societies and the impact of the Internet on different nation-states may have different results. Different nation-states present a different level of economic development, respect for rights, trans-nationality, and technological sophistication. While Turkey may be considered at a developing stage with respect to the Internet, others may be far more sophisticated with regards to Internet access, use, and penetration. Inevitably, this will be reflected in the policy making process and approaches to the governance of the Internet. Because of cultural, historical and socio-political diversity, there will inevitably be divergent approaches to the growth and governance of the Internet in different European societies. For example, while the German and French governments have political fears and sensitivities about the use of the Internet by Neo-Nazis, the United Kingdom takes a more relaxed attitude to the dangers of racism but conversely has a long cultural tradition of repression towards the availability of sexually explicit material. On the other hand, the Turkish government may be more concerned about defamatory statements made in relation to state officials and politicians, other values related to the State and the dissemination of racist and terrorist propaganda. No doubt, those concerns must not lead to the violation of international standards for the protection of freedom of expression in democratic societies.

Restricted Access by Yaman Akdeniz & Kerem Altıparmak assesses the nature of Internet content regulation and censorship in Turkey by providing an overview of the current legislative regime from a critical perspective. This will include legislative attempts to regulate Internet content in Turkey as well as a critical assessment of the recently enacted Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed by means of Such Publications and its related regulations. This will also include an analysis of the legal responsibilities of various actors including content providers, hosting companies, access providers (ISPs), and Internet cafes. The book also assesses how the current regulatory systems work and how websites, predominantly situated outside the Turkish jurisdiction, are blocked by court and administrative orders by giving examples. The book also assesses blocking orders which fall outside the scope of the new legislation.

Freedom of expression has been one of the key issues in Turkey’s democratisation process. The European Court of Human Rights has found Turkey in violation of the ECHR in a number of article 10 cases. The new Turkish law on Internet contains provisions that have potential to cause similar violations. Thus, this study examines the new regulations bearing this situation in mind. The book also contains an overview of international developments with regards to Internet content regulation at the European Union, and Council of Europe levels.

In Restricted Access, the authors Akdeniz & Altıparmak argue that Law No. 5651 was rushed through the Parliament just before the Parliament was dissolved for the 2007 general elections, and it has received no broad public support before or after its enactment. More importantly, the authors identify several problems and procedural defects with the application of Law No. 5651. Furthermore, Akdeniz & Altıparmak argue that the current Turkish regime, through its procedural and substantive deficiencies, is designed to censor and silence political speech. Its impacts are wide, affecting not only freedom of speech but also the right to privacy and fair trial. In its conclusion, Restricted Access calls for the abolishment of the Law No. 5651, and calls upon the government, among other recommendations, to commission a major public inquiry to develop a new policy which is truly designed to protect children from harmful Internet content while respecting freedom of speech, and the rights of Turkish adults to access and consume any type of Internet content.

About the Authors

Dr. Yaman Akdeniz is a Senior lecturer (Associate Professor) at the School of Law, University of Leeds. Akdeniz is the founder of Cyber-Rights.Org based in the UK, and the co-founder of BilgiEdinmeHakki.org, a pressure group working in the field of freedom of information law in Turkey. His recent publications include Internet Child Pornography and the Law: National and International Responses (London: Ashgate, 2008: ISBN: 0 7546 2297 5). For further information about his work see http://cyberlaw.org.uk. Akdeniz can be contacted at lawya@cyber-rights.org

Dr. Kerem Altıparmak is an Assistant Professor at the Ankara University, Faculty of Political Sciences. He is also responsible for a number of projects carried out by the Human Rights Centre of the Faculty. He is the author of numerous works on human rights in Turkey. His interest areas include freedom of expression, ECHR, national human rights institutions. For further information about his work see http://80.251.40.59/politics.ankara.edu.tr/altipar/. Altıparmak can be contacted at kerem.altiparmak@politics.ankara.edu.tr

How to obtain the Book: Internet: Restricted Access: A Critical Assessment of Internet Content Regulation and Censorship in Turkey can be obtained through the following websites: http://www.cyber-rights.org.tr; http://cyberlaw.org.uk; and http://www.ihop.org.tr/ as an e-book in PDF format, and versions in Turkish and English will be both available from Tuesday, 25 November, 2008. Furthermore, paper copies of the book can be obtained through bookshops in Turkey.

1. Internet: Restricted Access: A Critical Assessment of Internet Content Regulation and Censorship in Turkey – black/white version
2. Internet: Restricted Access: A Critical Assessment of Internet Content Regulation and Censorship in Turkey – colour version
3. For the Turkish version of the book click here (Türkçe)