A memo for bloggers:
In the first case of its kind, the Court of Appeal has endorsed website disclaimers. Mistakes can be excused by warning notices, it ruled. However, the judges based their decision, at least in part, on a misunderstanding of how people use websites.
The case confirms that a website can owe a duty of care to its visitors. That much was predictable, albeit untested (by my recollection) in UK courts. What was less predictable was how easily a site could dodge that duty: simply tell your visitors to seek further information before they rely on what they read and, hey presto, you're off the hook. This month’s ruling is a gift for the risk-averse. Cue more disclaimers on websites.
3 comments:
Interesting. But as my own job shows me, if a web site is available in another country, then you MAY be subject to the laws of the country in which the comment was made/read.
For example, a racist site based in the U.S was closed down in Germany recently because the content was available here.
O.K, we were powerless to prosecute the owners. But the web site is now blocked from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and, I believe, Poland, with whom we have reciperocal arangements.
This is not the end of that story.
When I visited Berlin I was struck by how ugly the people were compared to Germans from elsewhere. Even the models used in adverts for the local stores were rather plain. Suddenly the Grosz cartoons made sense.
Is that "racist"? Will it be censored?
dearieme said...
When I visited Berlin I was struck by how ugly the people were compared to Germans from elsewhere. Even the models used in adverts for the local stores were rather plain. Suddenly the Grosz cartoons made sense.
Is that "racist"? Will it be censored?
My Wife, who is Berlin born and bred. The bfamily being "Berliner" since 1450, (Then of course it was Berlin/Kölln) MAY take offence at that, as do I.
PREUSSEN ÜBER ALLES!
Post a Comment