Under slide 21 - it seems (unless I am misreading) "honest opinion" is defensible.
So if I call someone a shithead and hold that as my true opinion, it is defensible. But if I call someone a shithead as a matter-of-fact, it isn't. (replace shithead with most any slander: racist, pedophile, sexist)
Slide 32 made me laugh.
Slide 35 seems unreasonable. What if I went on vacation for a week? I only have 48 hours to operate in? So to legally cover my ass, I would have to hire someone to moderate the comment section of my blog while I went on a honeymoon? While this may be an excuse accepted by the court outside the letter-of-the-law (humans are a bit more... human in application of the law), the letter-of-the-law would hold me liable.
There seems to be a loophole that isn't given thought. What if the original comment presupposes the removal and affirms that - "in such a case that a claim is made to remove this comment, my response is that this comment must be retained." and gives their name and address?
Furthermore - wouldn't that put the commentator in potential harm/danger of their life (in an extreme scenario)? That hardly seems reasonable and only encourages them to not respond and have the comment removed. Which is harmful for free speech.
Thanks for the slides. Informative although still a bit scary.
The notes are a bit more detailed (p13 for Section 5). There seem to be lots of different overlapping defences of which you can choose to use one or more, that one is more protocol based and involved than the others (though some companies will like having a protocol to follow). It seems that the commentator doesn't have to consent to their contact information being released in order to keep their comment up.
I remember the guy saying that the best defence seems to be the EU "Information Society Service", and that's what will apply to most startups/businesses.
IANAL, but to be devil's advocate, it is slightly irresponsible to allow potentially malicious posters to post things on your website with no supervision, even if you are on holiday.
>It seems that the commentator doesn't have to consent to their contact information being released in order to keep their comment up.
So would my presumption clause work for keeping a comment up? I couldn't find anything on that approach.
>IANAL, but to be devil's advocate, it is slightly irresponsible to allow potentially malicious posters to post things on your website with no supervision, even if you are on holiday.
They do seem to take "ability to moderate" into consideration from a few case examples.
I honestly don't have a legal defense for this - I just see it as unreasonable. Which wouldn't hold up very well in court. :)
So if I call someone a shithead and hold that as my true opinion, it is defensible. But if I call someone a shithead as a matter-of-fact, it isn't. (replace shithead with most any slander: racist, pedophile, sexist)
Slide 32 made me laugh.
Slide 35 seems unreasonable. What if I went on vacation for a week? I only have 48 hours to operate in? So to legally cover my ass, I would have to hire someone to moderate the comment section of my blog while I went on a honeymoon? While this may be an excuse accepted by the court outside the letter-of-the-law (humans are a bit more... human in application of the law), the letter-of-the-law would hold me liable.
There seems to be a loophole that isn't given thought. What if the original comment presupposes the removal and affirms that - "in such a case that a claim is made to remove this comment, my response is that this comment must be retained." and gives their name and address?
Furthermore - wouldn't that put the commentator in potential harm/danger of their life (in an extreme scenario)? That hardly seems reasonable and only encourages them to not respond and have the comment removed. Which is harmful for free speech.
Thanks for the slides. Informative although still a bit scary.