Suprema Corte di Cassazione, overturned a prior verdict and held that Italy’s laws of
libel applied to content on foreign Web sites accessible by Internet users in the country. 64 Italian doctrine thus supports an effects test for choice of law, similar to that used
in the United States for personal jurisdiction: if the offending statements, wherever
posted, created an effect within the country, they are subject to the Italian law. Other
countries are reaching similar conclusions. The German Federal Court of Justice decided in 2000 that the Australian owner of an Australian Web site which denied the
Holocaust could be held liable in Germany. 65
Simultaneously, anti-defamation laws at the domestic level, particularly in Britain,
have been criticized for leading to a ‘‘Web takedown’’ culture in which ISPs immediately remove content alleged to be defamatory for fear of lawsuits. A landmark precedent
in the United Kingdom led the way for the establishment of a ‘‘notice and takedown’’
system. In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, 66 a defamatory statement was
made on a posting to a newsgroup, www.soc.culture.thai, available on a server of Demon Internet Limited. Despite Godfrey’s request to remove the post, Demon did not
comply. As a result, he claimed damages for libel under section 1 of the Defamation
Act of 1996 67 and settled with Demon out of court for over GBP 250,000. 68
On rare occasions, some countries have attempted to achieve tight Internet regulation by subjecting Web sites to mandatory registration under general media laws or
Internet-specific regulations. Such registration directly submits Web site owners and
users to civil and/or criminal law liability for content published online, which may
arise under provisions sanctioning defamation, dissemination of illegal content, and
pornography (among others). In some cases such publication may require preapproval
by a state agency. Poland, for instance, shows lack of clarity with regard to the
status of online media. A television broadcast segment that criticized the work of a
Polish debt collector prompted a series of threatening comments on a forum on the
GazetaBytowska.pl (Byto ´ w Newspaper) Web site. Polish police asked the Web site’s
administrator to give them identifying information for the commentators in question,
but he refused. The police then charged the Web site under article 45 of the Press Law
Act (PLA) of 1984. 69 A local court determined the Web site to be a daily publication
and therefore subject to the PLA, which provides for punishment for editors who
publish—even unintentionally—‘‘criminal content,’’ including threats like the ones
made in the online forum. The case was appealed to the Regional Court, which ruled
in February 2008 that Web sites such as GazetaBytowska.pl must be registered. 70 A
ruling of the Polish Supreme Court a year earlier stated that ‘‘journals and periodicals
do not lose the character of a press release due solely to the fact that they appear in the
form of an Internet transmission’’ and that ‘‘the publishing of press in an electronic
form, available on the Internet, requires registration.’’ Subsequently, a Supreme Court
spokesman emphasized that the ruling was not intended to suggest that all regularly
updated Web sites needed to be registered. 71
Europe Overview
287
libel applied to content on foreign Web sites accessible by Internet users in the country. 64 Italian doctrine thus supports an effects test for choice of law, similar to that used
in the United States for personal jurisdiction: if the offending statements, wherever
posted, created an effect within the country, they are subject to the Italian law. Other
countries are reaching similar conclusions. The German Federal Court of Justice decided in 2000 that the Australian owner of an Australian Web site which denied the
Holocaust could be held liable in Germany. 65
Simultaneously, anti-defamation laws at the domestic level, particularly in Britain,
have been criticized for leading to a ‘‘Web takedown’’ culture in which ISPs immediately remove content alleged to be defamatory for fear of lawsuits. A landmark precedent
in the United Kingdom led the way for the establishment of a ‘‘notice and takedown’’
system. In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, 66 a defamatory statement was
made on a posting to a newsgroup, www.soc.culture.thai, available on a server of Demon Internet Limited. Despite Godfrey’s request to remove the post, Demon did not
comply. As a result, he claimed damages for libel under section 1 of the Defamation
Act of 1996 67 and settled with Demon out of court for over GBP 250,000. 68
On rare occasions, some countries have attempted to achieve tight Internet regulation by subjecting Web sites to mandatory registration under general media laws or
Internet-specific regulations. Such registration directly submits Web site owners and
users to civil and/or criminal law liability for content published online, which may
arise under provisions sanctioning defamation, dissemination of illegal content, and
pornography (among others). In some cases such publication may require preapproval
by a state agency. Poland, for instance, shows lack of clarity with regard to the
status of online media. A television broadcast segment that criticized the work of a
Polish debt collector prompted a series of threatening comments on a forum on the
GazetaBytowska.pl (Byto ´ w Newspaper) Web site. Polish police asked the Web site’s
administrator to give them identifying information for the commentators in question,
but he refused. The police then charged the Web site under article 45 of the Press Law
Act (PLA) of 1984. 69 A local court determined the Web site to be a daily publication
and therefore subject to the PLA, which provides for punishment for editors who
publish—even unintentionally—‘‘criminal content,’’ including threats like the ones
made in the online forum. The case was appealed to the Regional Court, which ruled
in February 2008 that Web sites such as GazetaBytowska.pl must be registered. 70 A
ruling of the Polish Supreme Court a year earlier stated that ‘‘journals and periodicals
do not lose the character of a press release due solely to the fact that they appear in the
form of an Internet transmission’’ and that ‘‘the publishing of press in an electronic
form, available on the Internet, requires registration.’’ Subsequently, a Supreme Court
spokesman emphasized that the ruling was not intended to suggest that all regularly
updated Web sites needed to be registered. 71
Europe Overview
287