Blog And Maybe Not Be Damned

New High Court decision gives bloggers and ISPs greater protection

In a Judgment given on 2 March 2012, Eady J made a ruling which is encouraging for those hosting user-generated content (UGC) websites such as blogs.

Such website operators and ISPs benefit from the protection of section 1 of the Defamation Act 1986 which provides a defence to an entity which is "not the author, editor or publisher" of the words complained of, where reasonable care was taken and there was no knowledge or reason to believe that it had caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement. (There is an allied provision in the European Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, regulation 19).

The accepted approach has always been that where the complainant gives actual notice to the ISP of the defamatory words, the protection will be lost if it does not address the problem. Often, this meant immediate take-down of the offending material.

In the case of Tamiz v Google Inc and Google UK Limited [2012] EWHC 449(QB), Mr Justice Eady refined the approach, giving ISPs etc rather more leeway.

The case concerned comments posted on a blog about London Muslims hosted by Blogger.com which is operated by Google. The Claimant sued both Google Inc and Google UK Limited on the grounds that the comments were defamatory of him.

Prior to starting the action, he had complained to Google about the comments. After a period of time, Google had contacted the blogger who had removed the comments voluntarily. The complainant had been granted permission by the Court to serve the English libel proceedings on Google Inc in the US.

The issue in front of Eady J was whether that permission should be withdrawn because the English Court had no jurisdiction to try the complaint; and alternatively if there was jurisdiction, whether the English Court should decline to exercise it.

It was established that Google UK Limited did not control or operate Blogger.com and they were not involved in the hearing because they were not an appropriate party to the action.

This in itself is instructive when attempting to deal with untoward comment on Blogger.com – it seems clear now that there is no point in attempting to contact Google in this country and that complaint must be made to Google in the US.

The Judge's ruling was that Google Inc was not a publisher and could rely on the Defamation Act Section 1 defence and the protection of regulation 19.

The Judge said that the English Court did not have...