Defamation

[Oscar Benjamin]

On 22 October 2015 at 09:05, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, John O'Hagan <mail at johnohagan.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:09:18 +1100
>> Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't believe that the Python mailing list archives are hosted in a
>>> country under the jurisdiction of European Law. If I'm right, then
>>> removing posts sets a dangerous precedent of obeying laws in foreign
>>> countries that don't apply.
>>
>> For better or worse, that's not how defamation law works. Generally,
>> the defaming is regarded as happening where the material is read, i.e.
>> at the point of download. The location of upload, hosting etc is
>> irrelevant, although the uploader and the host can both be liable
>> along with the author. Of course, the point is moot if none of those
>> people has assets in that jurisdiction.
>
> So... someone in Europe who rents a server in the US has to worry
> about defamation law in literally every country on this planet, or
> else IP-ban people from accessing the server, just in case s/he's
> liable? Is that really how this works? Ouch.

Yeah the idea of national laws being subject to some kind of
internationally agreed jurisdiction is nice but has never been
implemented. Since you mention the US it's worth noting that some US
federal laws effectively have global jurisdiction. This means that
someone anywhere in the world can be deemed to have committed a
criminal offence under certain US laws even if their actions are
entirely legal under local law.

I have a feeling that something may have changed recently but
certainly until a few years ago we used to have lots of cases of
"libel tourism" in the UK. This is where someone decides to bring a
libel case which has nothing to do with the UK before the UK courts
because libel law here is steeped in favour of the litigant. UK law
requires the case to have a connection to the UK but the courts were
apparently prepared to accept very tenuous connections (presumably
because the whole business could function as an "export" bringing
loads of money to all the lawyers involved). AFAIK these cases usually
concerned foreign newspaper websites rather than something like the
archive here though.

Leaving aside the issue of "defamation" the posts that have been
removed here are IMO "spam" and it's entirely reasonable to remove
them regardless of any legal issues.

--
Oscar