Except that the actual legal judgement went to great lengths to avoid setting that kind of wider precedent by pointing out their judgement applied because the publisher was a large commercial publishing venture that, in the view of the court, could reasonably have been expected to be more proactive in moderating the comments on that particular article based on its subject matter and an apparent "general reputation of comments on the Delfi news portal" as well as the fact it was selling advertising on dedicated comment pages. It also made a point of ruling the fine was proportionate because they couldn't perceive it as having any impact upon its business model, which already includes a moderator team removing >20,000 inappropriate user generated posts per month....
I don't think the decision of the Estonian courts was a good one for a number of reasons, but I can also see why a supranational human rights court could have great trouble seeing why they should overturn it to defend a corporation from a small damages claim for UGC it had profited from and did not attempt to defend as legitimate speech.
> I don't think the decision of the Estonian courts was a good one for a number of reasons, but I can also see why a supranational human rights court could have great trouble seeing why they should overturn it to defend a corporation from a small damages claim for UGC it had profited from and did not attempt to defend as legitimate speech.
Fair enough, I was mainly responding to his weeks comment and the fact that as soon as they were notified it was removed w/i 24 hours of notification and the fact he said "notice-and-takedown" wasn't enough effectively.
I don't think the decision of the Estonian courts was a good one for a number of reasons, but I can also see why a supranational human rights court could have great trouble seeing why they should overturn it to defend a corporation from a small damages claim for UGC it had profited from and did not attempt to defend as legitimate speech.