ORM (Online Reputation Managment / 'Rating') Websites At Risk?

[sondagefaux]

The internet is simply a medium of expression and a website is simply a means of publication.

There's no reason to treat the internet differently from any other media, or to treat websites differently from other types of publication.

A newspaper which repeatedly published defamatory material, and made no attempt to correct or retract it, would face the same injunction.

Freedom of speech does not give the right to defame people repeatedly, with no consequences.

[Hugo7]

"...allowing unscrupulous persons or ill-motivated malcontents to vent their anger and grievances against people, where their allegations are patently untrue and unreasonable."
One would hardly expect a newspaper to allow similar submissions on their letters page or notices sections. The fact is such sites facilitate these public expressions. They must surely be expected to moderate the comments or face the consequences.

[Dan_Murphy]

Why not go after both as the website administration can control what they allow and
are therefore as culpable as the poster imo

No, they can only remove it later.

[IrishTom]

Cars can be used in bank robberies, doesn't mean I would shut down Ford.

Why go after the website and not the user who posted the untrue rating?

It was the easy option.

[former wesleyan]

A pity the judge hadn't balanced his remarks with a pithy dig at the legislators who have failed miserably in regulating /policing the legal profession which would render the perceived requirement for an anonymous site redunant.

[kalipa]

No, they can only remove it later.

If they removed it and warned the poster that their post was unacceptable then they would be
limiting their own liability . That is what I meant by control

[Sync]

No, they can only remove it later.

Or they could prevent it going up in the first place by having a screening system in place. Which is what the offended party will argue they should have.

[RainyDay]

The stuff on rate-my-solicitor was far less measured and sensible that the stuff on rate-my-teacher, frequented by school kids. What does that tell you about the users of rate-my-solicitor?

[Libero]

The internet is simply a medium of expression and a website is simply a means of publication.

That's your contention. I think many, many people see a substantive difference between, say, a national daily newspaper and a website established to facilitate live chat or - like this site - fast-moving discussion. Many might see that sort of website as being more similar to a public house, and we don't shut down pubs for being venues that people use for defamatory conversation, or the circulation of defamatory pamphlets.

There's no reason to treat the internet differently from any other media, or to treat websites differently from other types of publication.

That conclusion follows from your premise, but like I just wrote, I'm not sure that premise is widely accepted.

A newspaper which repeatedly published defamatory material, and made no attempt to correct or retract it, would face the same injunction.

Freedom of speech does not give the right to defame people repeatedly, with no consequences.

But how does the Irish High Court injunct a website? Once it's hosted outside the jurisdiction, and once it is unclear who inside the jurisdiction is responsible for the content, it's often a hopeless exercise.

The High Court might as well try to injunct the Moscow Times or the Washington Post. And civil courts are sensibly reluctant to grant injunctive relief that will, in practice, be impossible to implement.

So let's not pretend it's all as simple as treating websites just like Irish newspapers.