Source: https://inforrm.org/2017/03/22/case-law-strasbourg-pihl-v-sweden-no-liability-for-defamatory-users-comments-after-prompt-removal-upon-notice-dirk-voorhoof/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:33:54+00:00

Document:
In its decision of 9 March 2017 in Rolf Anders Daniel Pihl v. Sweden, the Court of Human Rights has clarified the limited liability of operators of websites or online platforms containing defamatory user-generated content.The Court’s decision is also to be situated in the current discussion on how to prevent or react on “fake news”, and the policy to involve online platforms in terms of liability for posting such messages.
Although the Court’s ruling expresses concerns about imposing liability on internet intermediaries that would amount to requiring excessive and impractical forethought capable of undermining the right to impart information via internet, the decision in Pihl v. Sweden itself guarantees only minimal protection for the rights of internet intermediaries and users’ rights.
2. it is obvious that the user has, by submitting the message, infringed the copyright or other right protected by Section 5 of the Copyright (Artistic and Literary Works) Act” (1960:729).
“expecting the association to assume that some unfiltered comments might be in breach of the law would amount to requiring excessive and impractical forethought capable of undermining the right to impart information via internet” (§ 31).
“liability for third-party comments may have negative consequences on the comment-related environment of an internet portal and thus a chilling effect on freedom of expression via internet. This effect could be particularly detrimental for a non-commercial website”.
Turning to the liability of the originator of the comment, the Court observes that Pihl obtained the IP-address of the computer used to submit the comment. However, he has not stated that he took any further measures to try to obtain the identity of the author of the comment. Lastly the Court notes that Pihl’s case was considered on its merits by two judicial instances at the domestic level before the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Moreover, the Chancellor of Justice examined Pihl’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, referring to the Court’s case-law and the need to balance the interests under Article 8 and Article 10, before finding that the case did not disclose a violation of his rights under Article 8. The Court further observes that the scope of responsibility of those running blogs is regulated by domestic law and that, had the comment been of a different and more severe nature, the association could have been found responsible for not removing it sooner.
In Pihl v. Sweden, in contrast with Delfi AS v. Estonia and Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, the ECtHR does not seem to require, at least not from small non-profit associations operating a website or online platform open for users’ comments, the pre-monitoring of all content, nor to have an effective notice-and-take-down system installed. Indeed in the case at issue it was clearly stated by the operating association that the content of users’ comments was not checked before publication and that commentators were responsible for their own statements, while only being requested to “display good manners and obey the law”.
There are no indications that a procedure for notice-and-take-down was installed, although from the facts it can be derived that upon notice, in casu the platform reacted promptly to remove the incorrect, offensive and defamatory messages, even accompanied with an apology by the association. This reaction in itself was enough to exonerate the association from liability, in the context of the case at issue. The Court’s decision in the case of Pihl v. Sweden leaves open the question whether such a removal, eventually accompanied with an apology, is necessary to exonerate the operators from liability, or whether in other situations a rectification, right of reply or other way of correcting the “false” allegations might be a more appropriate, sufficient and proportionate way in respect of the internet intermediaries’ and their users’ right to freedom of expression and information.
In an earlier blog we have expressed concern about pushing internet intermediaries further in the direction of private censorship, and that the burden on private actors to pre-monitor user generated content and eventually remove some of it, with a lack of clear criteria, a lack of transparency and no effective procedural guarantees creates a clear and present danger for the right to freedom of expression on the Internet. This concern is amplified in the context of current policies imposing more liability on internet intermediaries for content that can be considered as “fake news”, propaganda and hate speech.
Similar concerns have recently been uttered in the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. This joint declaration of 3 March 2017 put forward as a general principle that “intermediaries should never be liable for any third party content relating to those services unless they specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey an order adopted in accordance with due process guarantees by an independent, impartial, authoritative oversight body (such as a court) to remove it and they have the technical capacity to do that”.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
in casu
 v.