THAI WEBSITE THREATENED WITH LEGAL ACTION
Earlier this week Sajal, one of my regular readers, was threatened with legal action for a story he published on one of his news websites. He blogged about the experience yesterday.
The story was published on his site as part of a news feed, and the company concerned felt the story was factually incorrect and damaging. Their PR company contacted Sajal with the threat of legal action if the story wasn't removed immediately.
For me this case is perfectly timed as yesterday morning I was researching a story about media liability insurance products specifically for bloggers in the U.S. The fact is that bloggers and website operators are publishers, just like any newspaper, magazine or television station. If they publish something defamatory or damaging they run the risk of legal action. The fact Sajal's story came from a news feed isn't going to be a defence in law. I can recall cases where newspapers were sued for printing stories that were originally provided as part of an Associated Press news wire, and were subsequently proved to be libelous. In Sajal's case the original story came from the Public Relations Department of the Royal Thai Government. They have now issued a clarification.
If you're a blogger or have a website I strongly urge you to read Sajal's post. He's removed the original story but if you read the clarification you can get an idea of what's being written. It does appear the original story was extremely one-sided and did not contain any balance in the form of comment from the affected company.
RSS and news feeds are great but if the author publishes something factually incorrect or defamatory they theoretically everyone that publishes that feed could be liable for legal action
10 comments:
He's removed the original story but if you read the clarification you can get an idea of what's being written. It does appear the original story was extremely one-sided and did not contain any balance in the form of comment from the affected company.
Since when does one of PRD or The Nation or the Bangkok's stories contain any balance?
I love that the clarification is basically a press release from the company. No doubt the same person who approved the initial story approved the clarification. I wonder how they know it is an illegal strike. If it was not deemed an illegal strike, calling it one, would also be defamatory.
Interesting. American courts have repeatedly upheld for years that websites aren't liable for user comments (which is pretty much common sense, if you ask me). Unfortunately for free speech and a sensible legal system, user comments regularly get websites in trouble in Thailand.
So what makes this different? Perhaps it is different, but it doesn't seem like it. The websites that run the story aren't responsible for the content in any direct way. They provide a platform for the comments, but they didn't write the material.
And especially if it's part of a news feed, then was it even a conscious decision to run that particular story, or did it automatically show up on the website via the feed?
Can you post the results of the research you said you were doing on blogger liability?
Rikker, this is different because this relates to a news feed and not author comments. I don't believe there was a conscious decision on the part of Sajal to publish - it just came along with other stories as part of an automated feed. It's the same as a news wire feed from someone like Associated Press.
I'm working on a story for my magazine about legal liabilities of bloggers, although I think this case is slightly different because it relates to a news website and not strictly a blog. However I believe there are implications for everyone, including me, that carry RSS feeds from elsewhere on my site.
I say that because let's say someone at The Nation (I am using that publication as I have a feed on the sidebar on my home page) decides to have some fun and post a malicious and false headline saying: "XXX Company is in financial trouble". The damage is done the moment that headline appears on sites that have RSS feeds to that site. I believe XXX Company could claim damages against anyone who published that headline, whether a newspaper, magazine, news website or even a blog such as mine.
Rikker: Thai defamation law is much more similiar to the UK law with the onus being on the defendant to prove what they say is true. For the UK though you do have innocent dissemination. See this article which looks at that and defamation on the internet. Once the publisher is on notice they can be liable.
For Thailand, these two articles are probably the best source in English.
Right. I guess what I was getting at was, has a case like this ever gone to court? Involving automated RSS feeds?
Ideally it would be a case where a news story was shown via automated RSS feed on a website, and the person was judged to be legally liable (or not liable) for that content.
I realize the distinction between user comments and an automated feed, but I think it must come down to what it means to "publish" something. In comparing the two, an automated feed seems more similar to the reader comments scenario than a intentionally written blog posting, based on the lack of conscious choice by the blog owner to display that particular story on his website.
Again, this seems like a no-brainer to me (i.e. that the person isn't liable). It just doesn't make sense that hundreds or thousands of people who may post a given automated RSS feed on their site would be liable for potentially slanderous content of that feed. Doesn't make sense.
These legal scenarios are much more poorly developed in Thailand, though, and legal precedent in other nations seems to have no bearing on how things are handled here. That is to say, things here can be very scary for bloggers (and everyone), as freedom of speech is very poorly defined here.
After actually reading the story the company demanded be pulled, this seems like bullying, corporate censorship through legal threat. Especially since the supposed company representative refused to provide any factual correction.
If this happened in the U.S., the bad press over the attempt to kill the story would do far more damage than the original (supposedly incorrect) story ever would have. But the Streisand Effect doesn't work as well here yet.
firstly thanks a lot blogging about my issue and clarifying matters.
Thanks to everyone for your comments.
For the record there had been 7 views (in 6 hours) on that story before the lady called me and made a fuss about it.
her concern was that the story came up when searching for their company name on google (I assume google news).
The story was added manually on our site. Even if it were automatic I don't think it makes any difference.
Andrew, about your specific example...
If your blog says "XXX Company is in financial trouble" you say you would get in trouble... so what if you said "As per Nation's RSS feed, XXX Company is in financial trouble"
If in the future i take such stories from the newswire, could i mention before the story that "As per yyy newswire" ? Does that shift my responsibility? That newswire did indeed say that. Its not me. ?
I was under the impression that if Mr X says something defamatory about Mr. Y , the media has full right to report that "Mr X said such and such about Mr. Y" isint it the same thing here?
Those of you in the PR, what would you have done? Would you ever threaten a news publisher with legal action even if they were ready to comply without the need of it?
Being in Thailand even I have learnt that in Thailand you can ask anything from a person politely and you would get it. Its quite ironical that the lady who called was a Thai.
Including the words ".. as reported by XXX" is unlikely to be accepted as a defence.
According to information on the Electronics Frontier Foundation website "Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker — if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation."
As far as the U.S. goes bloggers have just the same legal obligations as mainstream media, but as Rikker says the laws in Thailand are not so clearly defined and I doubt there's even been a test case.
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php provides useful information BUT remember it refers to U.S. law.
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php
This site mentions something called Section 230 which DOES provide immunity fot bloggers and website operators. It says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
The website adds: "Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider." Therefore in the United States at least, a Section 230 defence could have been used by Sajal against the request for removal of the story in question.
RE: bangkok-bugle's comment;
"Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker — if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation."
Surely that is the key point of defence for Sajal, the knowledge of the defamation. Sajal took this story from a trusted source, as far as he is aware it is correct. I think Thailand really needs a test case in this area as Thailand's internet use is booming and more and more Thai's are hosting sites or blogging it is certainly an issue that is due to be thrust into the foreground.
The link that Bkk-Pundit posted from http://tinyurl.com/6n4nlp ,is a very interesting article which helps to highlight the need for concern in this area. The most worrying section states;
"The problem, however, and what affects most defendants, is that the practical burden of proving falsity under Thai law does not lie on the plaintiff. Rather, the defendant is invariably placed in the position of having to prove that his statement was true to escape liability."
By putting the onus on the defendant really means that you have got to be fully aware that your statements are true, something that can be problematic if you are taking information from a third-party sources or automated feeds.
In this day of RSS feeds and API access is is so easy for information to be automated from one portal to the next, we need to have a clear understanding of the legal implications of signing up to these automated feeds, although I imagine in the west, common sense will prevail, whereas in Thailand common sense doesn't exist, so we are screwed.
Great comments, all. I guess for me it's that when U.S. law actually does make sense (which often is not the case), it's hard to get it through my skull that things can be handled so differently elsewhere, and in ways that seem so illogical to me.
Anyone remember the fuss when Thailand's Lost Boy (whatismatt.com) got a purported call from the MICT to pull a post? People accused him of making it up. Others said it was someone playing a prank.
Regardless, one thing sticks out to me: speech rights in Thailand are not clear at all. And then there's That One Law, the very discussion of which can get you accused of it, which seems to supersede any and all rights whatsoever.
Yes, it seems Ray's words are true far too much of the time: we are screwed.
Post a Comment