COMMENT: On the moderation of racist and bigotted comments on blogs Part I

To what extent should bloggers be held responsible (whether legally or morally) for comments left on their blogs? This is an extremely contentious issue, and one I've previously written about in a piece for Crikey which can be found here.

Amateur bloggers (such as yours truly) don't have the time and resoyrces to immediately deal with offensive, defamatory or racist comments. In the case of the Planet Irf blog, the period between offensive comments being posted and removed can be days if not hours. But what about well-resourced blogs?

I now want to explore a few blogs where I've featured from time to time. The first blog I wanted to examine is Tim Blair's blog on the Daily Telegraph website, published by Rupert Murdoch's Nationwide News. The website is owned by News Digital Media Pty Limited.

Paragraph 13 of the website's Terms & Conditions states ...

Contributing Content

13. When you submit content to News in any format, including any text ..., you grant News a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual license to publish that content ...

15. You warrant that you have all of the necessary rights, including copyright, in the content you contribute, that your content is not defamatory and that it does not infringe any law.

16. You indemnify News against any and all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by News as a result of a breach of the above warranty.

These terms don't state that the owner of the site has no liability for comments posted on blogs which are defamatory or infringe anti-discrimination, racial vilification or other laws. Rather, they state that, should a plaintiff commence legal proceedings against News Limited, Nationwide News, the editor, the blogger and/or other entities associated with he website, News Limited can seek indemnity from the person posting the comment.

The publisher's liability in this regard is also affected by the comment publication guidelines which include:

4. News will determine, at its discretion, whether to publish (or remove from a site) any of your content ...

7. News may edit your content in its discretion.

8. You warrant that: ...

(d) your content, your provision of your content to News and the use by News of your content, in each case as contemplated in these terms and conditions, does not breach any law (including laws relating to privacy, intellectual property and defamation) or the rights of any person;

10. On providing your content to News for publication in any media, you indemnify News and its officers, employees and agents against any damage or loss made against or suffered by any of those indemnified arising, in whole or in part, as a result of:
(a) the publication by News or a person permitted by News of your content; or
(b) a breach by you of these terms and conditions.

From all these guidelines, terms and conditions, we can reach the following conclusions:

a. The publishers of the site are legally responsible for comments submitted to and published on blogs.

b. The publishers and any employees responsible for moderating comments, as well as their editor-supervisors, are legally liable for any defamation or other breach of law.

This is the legal liability situation. But what about issues relating to journalism ethics? And balancing freedom of speech with freedom from vilification? What do we make of comments being moderated and allowed onto blogs and stories notwithstanding the fact that they promoting ethnic-based violence?

To be continued ...

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf