I'm quite doubtful that the international laws would work that way. But maybe someone with more of a background in law can shed some light on these differing opinions? Might there actually be reason for concern for every web page operator who allows comments?
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/11/every-web...
But what if you just run an imageboard or a forum? Any CRUD app with user generated content? Does it not matter if you have a policy of deleting generally threatening comments? I have a hard time accepting that interpretation, it's just too absurd to me ...
The idea that popularity has been decided increase risk of going beyond the boundaries of "acceptable" speech is door wide open to abuse. It basically tells any site operator the more popular the more diligent you must be because you should know better
I'm suprised this is happening in Estonia, I always thought of Estonia as excelling in the tech world compared with most EU countries.
The idea that publishers have a positive duty to assure that what they publish is not harmful (libelous, or otherwise) with limited defenses is pretty common globally; the US idea that the freedom of speech is so strong publishers have a fairly minimal duty in this regard so long as harms are not intentional (or reckless in some cases) is, AFAIK, less common.
So the fact that it is burdensome on publishers and creates costs that would make certain forms of interaction difficult isn't considered problematic from that perspective -- what's problematic is the unpoliceable publications.
But that's true in the U.S also. It's called "false light", and basically it means you can construct a description of someone that's entirely true, but because of its negative slant, the person is put in a false light and you can be sued.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light
Quote : "False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being" rather than protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation[1] and in being about the impression created rather than being about true or false." [emphasis added]
>The judgment isn’t final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. If it believes so, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If not, the original judgment becomes final on that day.
I'm not sure what particulars of Estonian law compelled them to unanimously decide this way. Maybe there is some strangeness there that means the ruling won't apply broadly, but it sure sounds wacky and problematic.
Personally, I don't see why we should blame them for stupid Estonian laws and/or judges.
