<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Journalism.co.uk Editors&#039; Blog &#187; Eady</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/tag/eady/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors</link>
	<description>Online journalism news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:16:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>OUT-LAW.com: Google not liable for defamation in snippets, rules Eady</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/07/20/out-law-com-google-not-liable-for-defamation-in-snippets-rules-eady/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/07/20/out-law-com-google-not-liable-for-defamation-in-snippets-rules-eady/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:10:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Oliver</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Editors' pick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=12213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Google is not liable as a publisher even if &#8217;snippets&#8217; (the summaries contained in its search results) contain libellous words, a high court ruled last week.
The search engine&#8217;s UK and US divisions were sued in England by a training business over comments about its distance learning courses made on a US web forum &#8211; an [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.journalism.co.uk%2Feditors%2F2009%2F07%2F20%2Fout-law-com-google-not-liable-for-defamation-in-snippets-rules-eady%2F"><img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.journalism.co.uk%2Feditors%2F2009%2F07%2F20%2Fout-law-com-google-not-liable-for-defamation-in-snippets-rules-eady%2F" height="61" width="51" /></a></div>
<p>Google is not liable as a publisher even if &#8217;snippets&#8217; (the summaries contained in its search results) contain libellous words, a high court ruled last week.</p>
<p>The search engine&#8217;s UK and US divisions were sued in England by a training business over comments about its distance learning courses made on a US web forum &#8211; an excerpt of which then appeared in search results for the firm.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Google said that Google Inc. should be sued in California, not England. But even if England is the proper forum, it argued, Google has no responsibility for the words complained of, and therefore there is &#8216;no reasonable prospect of success&#8217; which is a requirement of rules on serving lawsuits outside the court&#8217;s jurisdiction,&#8221; reports OUT-LAW.com.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In his ruling, Mr Justice Eady made some additional, significant comments (close to this writer&#8217;s heart):</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;There appears to be no previous English authority dealing with this modern phenomenon (&#8230;) Indeed, it is surprising how little authority there is within this jurisdiction applying the common law of publication or its modern statutory refinements to Internet communications.&#8221;</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.out-law.com/page-10181">Full story at this link&#8230;</a></p>
<p><strong>Similar Posts:</strong>
<ul class="similar-posts">
<li><a href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/06/02/the-register-dutch-news-portal-sued-over-google-page-summary/" rel="bookmark" title="June 2, 2009">The Register: Dutch news portal sued over Google page summary</a></li>
<li><a href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/10/30/htfp-newsquest-wins-court-ruling-in-defence-of-user-generated-content/" rel="bookmark" title="October 30, 2009">HTFP: Newsquest wins court ruling in defence of user-generated content</a></li>
<li><a href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2007/10/05/google-search-looks-to-bloggers/" rel="bookmark" title="October 5, 2007">Google search looks to bloggers</a></li>
<li><a href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/01/22/publishers-vertical-search-can-rival-google-says-aop-forum/" rel="bookmark" title="January 22, 2008">Publishers&#8217; vertical search can rival Google, says AOP forum</a></li>
<li><a href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/03/25/ojr-using-google-trends-to-fine-tune-your-news-website/" rel="bookmark" title="March 25, 2008">OJR: Using Google Trends to fine-tune your news website</a></li>
</ul>
<p><!-- Similar Posts took 5.526 ms --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/07/20/out-law-com-google-not-liable-for-defamation-in-snippets-rules-eady/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Register: Mosley judge dismisses forum libel complaints</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/08/01/the-register-mosley-judge-dismissed-forum-libel-complaints/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/08/01/the-register-mosley-judge-dismissed-forum-libel-complaints/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Oliver</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Editors' pick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Max Mosley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/29/advfn_libel_eady_mosley/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Justice Eady, the judge who awarded Max Mosley damages in his privacy case against the News of the World, has blocked a contributor from suing an online forum.

The decision, which places a civil restraint order on Nigel Smith, ends 37 sets of libel proceedings launched by Smith against other forum users and the ADVFN forum itself. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Justice Eady, the judge who awarded Max Mosley damages in his privacy case against the News of the World, has blocked a contributor from suing an online forum.

The decision, which places a civil restraint order on Nigel Smith, ends 37 sets of libel proceedings launched by Smith against other forum users and the ADVFN forum itself. ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/08/01/the-register-mosley-judge-dismissed-forum-libel-complaints/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
