Mr Justice Eady rules for free speech, for once
« previous post | next post »
Mr Justice Eady does not often give me cause for joy in his rulings: he is notorious for upholding English libel judgments, where common sense and any reasonable notion of freedom of expression would (in my humble opinion) suggest that the plaintiff should be sent from the courtroom with an admonition not to be so silly ringing in his ears. But he has at least ruled against Payam Tamiz, a law student and unsuccessful Conservative Party candidate, who wanted Google to be held responsible for the content of comments on a blog that accused him of things (clearly defamatory things, it should be acknowledged).
English law is insanely biased in favor of plaintiffs in libel cases, where American law treats the good of an open political system as more important than the hurt feelings or impugned reputations of public figures such as political candidates. Eady has been solidly on the side of the English law. But in this case he held that Google's role in this affair was not like that of a publisher. Rather, it was like that of the owner of a wall on which random individuals could spray-paint graffiti. The owner could hardly be expected to be out there every day checking and verifying to see which graffiti had to be whitewashed out.
See The Daily Mail for coverage of the judgment — and a picture of the stern-faced Mr Justice Eady in a wig.
[Comments are not open; but it is quite OK to spray-paint them on any suitable vacant wall that you may find, if the owner does not object.]