Contrary to the widely held belief "Why you can't sue Google", it is my belief that you can. For example, take the case of Rachel North London. Some readers may not be aware that Rachel survived the 7/7 terrorist attack on the London Underground. That should have been enough for anybody to go through. However, Rachel has since been the subject of another terrorist attack. An ongoing terrorist attack. She has been subjected to psychological warfare, by a cyber-terrorist. I am not talking about cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying, as bad as these are in themselves, this has gone a step further. Rachel went to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted under the harassment laws, and won her case in court, but the terrorist has continued to attack, not just Rachel, but others also. The terrorist has only been able to continue because AOL the terrorist's Internet Service Provider, and Google (who owns blogspot.com) where she has her blog, have facilitated this terrorist's activities.
The law is a living instrument. It moves on. The US challenges to Google do not bind this intended action. This is not about an attack upon freedom of speech. God forbid that that should happen. Nor is it intended to frighten AOL and other ISPs into over reacting, nor harm Google in any way. This is simply about not permitting Google and AOL to supply "arms and ammunition" to a cyber-terrorist and allowing a victim of a physical terrorist attack to continue to be psychologically attacked on the internet. Once Google and AOL have been put on notice, and it has been brought to their attention what is happening, and they facilitated further attacks, then it renders both AOL and Google legally liable. Nobody is above the law in England, not even Google and AOL, and if they are not aware of this principle then they will soon learn it.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022013.htm
ReplyDeleteThe Electronic Commerce Regulations Act 2002 ( EC Directive)
Hosting
19. Where an information society service is provided which consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that storage where -
(a) the service provider -
(i) does not have actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information and, where a claim for damages is made, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent to the service provider that the activity or information was unlawful; or
(ii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information, and
(b) the recipient of the service was not acting under the authority or the control of the service provider.
ISPs seem liable if they host unlawful material, once it has been brought to their attention it should come down.
A good article, thank you
Thanks Rachel. This is the same principle which forms part of the intended action. It is one thing for Google and AOL to be ignorant or claim to be ignorant of the facts, but once they have been notified and continue to allow it to continue unabated means that they are legally liable.
ReplyDeleteOh wow...that is unbelievable. I certainly hope this will set a precedent for future cases of this.
ReplyDeleteHi Ginger:
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't get too excited yet. Basically, because if I am right then I have a feeling it will only be valid in Europe. This is because the freedom of expression is not absolute but has limitations. As you see above, Rachel has cited a European Communities Directive which is binding in European States. And, so is Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, if it becomes the case that I am right, it might lead your Supreme Court to rethink its interpretation of the Constitution.