Irish law governing review / ratings websites

rhythm90

Hi folks,

I'm researching the area at the moment and am examining sites like https://ie.ratemyteachers.com/ , http://www.ratemyhospital.ie etc.

Regarding the website owners / administrators themselves, I noticed there is an American law stating that:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

In effect, just including a disclaimer that opinions expressed are not those of the website owners etc. etc. seems like it would remove any liability from a website owner / operator for any controversial or negative / defamatory comments made by users.


My question is... Is there an equivalent in Irish law? Or would anybody be able to steer me in the right direction.


FYI - I'm a first year Computer Science student with an idea that I think could work which is similar to these... but I'm not exactly up to speed with the legal side of things at the moment.

Any input appreciated

Thanks

hullaballoo

I wrote my masters thesis on this topic so good luck finding the answer for free on the internet.

rhythm90

No better person so... Care to enlighten me? ..... for free..... on the internet?!


... Seriously though, I'm just wondering for now where to start looking... I can put the picture together myself...

rhythm90

Ok found this... http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/pdf

Although it doesn't really go into specifics, just mentions there may be a case for defamation is something is published online - which is classified as a public medium...

Any thoughts?

Avatar MIA

hullaballoo wrote: »

I wrote my masters thesis on this topic so good luck finding the answer for free on the internet.

Did you have to pay, apart from resources available through being a student, for any information that went into the masters degree.

Avatar MIA

OP,

GDPR Irish/EU law is going to be a game changer on this.

Reciprocity

hullaballoo wrote: »

I wrote my masters thesis on this topic so good luck finding the answer for free on the internet.

Maybe you could give him a pointer, or tell him where you did your Masters so he can look through their published Proceedings.

You know, pay forward the assistance you got when you were a student.

Just a suggestion.

GM228

rhythm90 wrote: »

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

In effect, just including a disclaimer that opinions expressed are not those of the website owners etc. etc. seems like it would remove any liability from a website owner / operator for any controversial or negative / defamatory comments made by users.


My question is... Is there an equivalent in Irish law? Or would anybody be able to steer me in the right direction.

I suppose the defence of innocent publication under the Defamation Act 2009 or the defences allowed under the E-Commerce Directive 2000 could apply, (but I would bow to any correction by Hullaballoo on this topic as (I believe) it is one of his areas of specialty).

davo10

http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=18477

http://www.rate-your-solicitor.com/

lifeandtimes

https://m.independent.ie/business/media/traditional-and-social-media-not-on-level-defamation-playing-field-36296572.html

This may help you in a little way

hullaballoo

No need for snarky replies. I was merely pointing out that the area is complicated enough to have been worthy of a master level thesis.

It's not a question that can be answered in a few lines, or a few thousand lines. I'm just pointing that out.

I'd abandon any idea of finding the answer to this question in this jurisdiction until a defamation claim in the area is fully prosecuted successfully or otherwise.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'd abandon any idea of finding the answer to this question in this jurisdiction until a defamation claim in the area is fully prosecuted successfully or otherwise.

Would the Mulvaney vs Betfair [2009] IEHC 133 and Muwema vs Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] IEHC 519 High Court cases not be relevant in relation to ISPs.

From the Muwema case I find the last para interesting:-

65. I have come to the first of the conclusions above with some unease. It is clear that the Regulations, while protecting ISPs from actions for damages in circumstances such as arise in this case, at the same time envisage the granting of appropriate injunctive relief to safeguard the legal rights of those whose rights might otherwise be infringed by the activities of the customers of ISPs. Similarly, the Act of 2009 protects ISPs from actions for defamation where they are innocent of the publication of the defamatory material. However, the Act of 2009 does not permit of the granting of injunctive relief against an ISP in circumstances where the ISP is likely to have a defence to the proceedings. It is true that this broadly reflects the law prior to Act of 2009. But the principles governing applications for prior restraint orders prior to 2009 were based upon the proposition that damages were the appropriate remedy in cases of defamation. The Act of 2009 now provides a shield against damages (as indeed do the Regulations) to defendants meeting its requirements, and the same shield also prevents the Court from granting injunctive relief to persons claiming to be defamed. Thus, it appears, a person who has been defamed by an internet posting may be left without any remedy at all, unless the author is identified and amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. Moreover, because of the all encompassing nature of the defence afforded by s.27 of the Act of 2009, a person subjected to a defamatory posting to which the defence applies cannot succeed in any manner in the proceedings, and the problem is not therefore confined to interlocutory applications; the victim, it appears, can never obtain relief as against the ISP. This begs the question as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant takedown or prior restraint orders in proceedings for defamation otherwise than in the circumstances prescribed by the Act of 2009. The Court had such jurisdiction prior to the Act of 2009, but now that the Oireachtas has legislated in the area, it seems to me to be strongly arguable that such orders may only be made within the strictures of the Act. Unfortunately, this question was not addressed in these proceedings, other than it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that such orders could be made pursuant to the Regulations, but for the reason given above I do not believe this is so. If my concerns are well founded however, it is a matter of grave concern. Persons whose reputations are seriously damaged by anonymous and untrue internet postings may be left without any legal remedy against the site hosting the publication, even in the most flagrant of cases. The reluctance of the courts here and in other jurisdictions to grant prior restraint orders reflects the importance attached by the courts and society at large to freedom of expression. There must be a doubt however about whether an ISP, which disclaims any responsibility for or interest in the material complained about, is entitled to assert in defence of an application such as this, the right to freedom of expression of a party who has chosen to remain anonymous and remains at the time of the hearing of the application unidentified and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, and who in any event does not have a right to publish defamatory statements. If this is indeed a consequence of s.27 of the Act of 2009, I doubt very much if it is a consequence intended by the Oireachtas.

Mr. Incognito

In effect, just including a disclaimer that opinions expressed are not those of the website owners etc. etc. seems like it would remove any liability from a website owner / operator for any controversial or negative / defamatory comments made by users.

It would not.

You will need a solicitor with expertise to draft the terms and conditions.

You will have to pay for this expertise

Or you will have to pay for multiple lawsuits.

lifeandtimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

In effect, just including a disclaimer that opinions expressed are not those of the website owners etc. etc. seems like it would remove any liability from a website owner / operator for any controversial or negative / defamatory comments made by users.

It would not.

You will need a solicitor with expertise to draft the terms and conditions.

You will have to pay for this expertise

Or you will have to pay for multiple lawsuits.

Side question, does that work with public carparks and buildings etc that have small signs that say "so and so company does not accept liability for damage or injury on their premises"?

Mr. Incognito

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Side question, does that work with public carparks and buildings etc that have small signs that say "so and so company does not accept liability for damage or injury on their premises"?

There is a large body of case law on this.

In general yes, but there are many exceptions.