英语论文网

nt originated by a subscriber, nor have they the power to filter information posted online [11] . It follows then that the law regulating defamation issues in cyber-street, is surrounded by uncertainty, controversy and obscurity.

As far as the U.K. is concerned, the service provider liability for carrying defamatory material is dealt with by s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996 [12] . In essence, the Act offers three specific ways by which an ISP can escape liability in relation to a defamation claim, which arose as a result of a libellous comment posted by an Internet user. In particular, if it can be proven that the ISP is not the “author, editor or publisher” of the defamatory statement, “took reasonable care in relation to its publication” and can provide evidence that it “did not know, and had not reason to believe that it caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement” [13] , then it cannot be said to hold liability for the statement in question.

Even at first glance, the wording of the Act along with its natural and direct interpretation, not only seems to create an undue burden on the ISP defendant, but it is also obvious that the scope of protection that it provides towards the ISPs is strictly narrow; apparently, the UK legislation adapts the innocent disseminator defence to cyberspace, where the ISP’s role is purely passive and pertains only to the technical distribution of the defamatory material. What also appears to be problematic with the above provision is the lack of clarity in relation to the definitions of some of the terms used, such as ‘reasonable care’. However, in order to confirm the validity of such a severe criticism of the law, an analysis of post-1996 case law is more than required.

Godfrey v. Demon Internet, Ltd [14] , a case concerning a defamatory statement posted on an Internet bulletin board by an anonymous user, was the first to be decided under s.1 of the 1996 Act [15] . On the facts of the case, the Judges had no difficulty in deciding that Demon, the defendant ISP, did not fall, by any means, under the definition of the ‘publisher’ of the defamatory statement, as given under s.1(2) and s.1(3) of the 1996 Act. As Demon was held to be involved only in the technical part of the distribution of the statement, it was therefore entitled to take advantage of the innocent disseminator defence. So far, there is nothing surprising with the decision, since it would make no sense to say that Demon Ltd are in business as commercial publishers as statutorily defined [16] .

Nevertheless, things are not that simple from the ISPs perspective. The mere proof that the Internet Service Provider is not the publisher, author or editor of the defamatory material is not enough for them to establish their innocence. Beyond this, an ISP is also required to demonstrate that he took ‘reasonable care’ in relation to the statement and also that he ‘did not know or had no reason to believe’ that he caused or contributed to the publication of the statement’. It is therefore conceivable that If the ISP conc本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。