Links & Law - Internetrecht und Suchmaschinenoptimierung für Juristen & Webmaster

Internetrecht für Juristen und Webmaster Suchmaschinen & Such-maschinenoptimierung Blog zu Internetrecht und Suchmaschinenoptimierung Links & Law SEO-Angebote Urteile zum Internetrecht Literatur zu SEO und Internetrecht  Lebenslauf / Impressum 
15.3.2012 High Court - Tamiz v. Google
In Großbritannien hat sich der England and Wales High Court mit der Haftung von Google in seiner Eigenschaft als Host-Provider (für Blogger) beschäftigt, Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 449 (QB) (02 March 2012). Das Unternehmen hatte zunächst nichts gegen einen Blog-Eintrag unternommen, der angeblich persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzende Inhalte aufwies. Das Gericht beschäftigte sich u.a. mit den Haftungsprivilegierungsvorschriften der E-Commerce-Richtlinie und kam unter Einbeziehung der jüngeren EuGH-Rechtsprechung (Stichwort: L’Oreal-Urteil) zu dem Ergebnis, dass alleine die Behauptung einer Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung noch keine Kenntnis des Diensteanbieters begründet:

 

It is clearly important to focus on the meaning of the word "unlawful" in this context. As I have already noted, under the common law, it is generally reckoned that the publication of a "defamatory" allegation is not necessarily unlawful. While it may bear a prima facie defamatory meaning on its face, such a publication may ultimately prove not to be unlawful if some recognised defence is available. The point was addressed in Bunt v Tilley, at [72], where it was observed that "in order to be able to characterise something as 'unlawful' a person would need to know something of the strength or weaknesses of the available defences". I was invited to consider also the terms of paragraph 16.75 of Dr Matthew Collins' work The Law of Defamation and the Internet (3rd edn):

"Suppose, for example, that a host knows that its server contains information imputing that an individual is guilty of a serious crime, but knows no facts or circumstances bearing one way or the other on the truth or falsity of that imputation. In those circumstances, it seems likely that the host would be entitled to rely on the Regulation 19 defence. The host does not have actual knowledge that the information on its server is unlawful, and is not aware of factual circumstances from which it is or would have been apparent that that information is unlawful."

...

Accordingly, she submits, a provider who simply receives notification that particular words are alleged to be defamatory will not have received notification of illegality in terms that are adequately substantiated. Such a provider would not have actual knowledge of illegality; nor an awareness of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent that the information was unlawful. In order to achieve that state of mind, it would be necessary to examine and consider, on an informed basis, the validity or strength of any available defences (including, for example, those of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege in one or other of its recognised forms)."


   

Google
 
Web www.linksandlaw.de

 

 

n

 

News

Die aktuellen News finden Sie seit September 2012 auf

 Links & Law Blogspot.

Ältere News wandern ins Archiv (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,  2009, 2010, 2011 und 2012)

 

 
 

Internetrecht-Startseite | Kontakt | Anwälte Internetrecht | Internetrecht-Suchmaschine

Copyright © 2002-2009  Dr. Stephan Ott