Tag: innocent disseminator

Google liability for defamation on Blogger.com: Tamiz v GoogleGoogle liability for defamation on Blogger.com: Tamiz v Google

February 20, 2013February 20, 2013 Barry SookmanBarry Sookman 0 Comments

Last week the UK Court of Appeal in Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (14 February 2013) ruled that Google, as the host of the Blogger.com site, had potential liability for defamation by failing to take down or disable access to defamatory content once it receives notice that it is hosting such content.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the UK High Court in Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 449 (QB) (02 March 2012) which had dismissed a claim against Google for not taking down or removing access to allegedly defamatory statements posted on Blogger.com.…

Read FullRead Full

Search engines liability for defamation – Trkulja v GoogleSearch engines liability for defamation – Trkulja v Google

November 28, 2012November 28, 2012 Barry SookmanBarry Sookman 0 Comments

Is a search engine liable for publishing defamatory materials that are assembled for the first time in an automated manner by its programmed computers? In the recent Australian case Trkulja v Google Inc LLC & Anor (No 5) [2012] VSC 533 (12 November 2012), a jury found Google liable. The trial judge confirmed the jury’s ruling holding that search engines are publishers for the purposes of defamation law when their computers produce and put together search results in accordance with their intended operation.…

Read FullRead Full

Hyperlinking and ISP liability clarified by Supreme Court in Crookes caseHyperlinking and ISP liability clarified by Supreme Court in Crookes case

October 20, 2011October 20, 2011 Barry SookmanBarry Sookman 0 Comments

The Supreme Court released its reasons in Crookes v. Newton 2011 SCC 47 yesterday. The legal issue in the appeal was whether hyperlinks that connect to allegedly defamatory material can be said to “publish” that material. The majority of the Court concluded that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers. Although the case dealt mainly with that issue the Court gave expansive reasons which will have significant impacts on future cases involving Internet defamation, freedom of expression on the Internet, and the liability of ISPs for dissemination of defamatory or infringing content.…

Read FullRead Full