Media Defence Logo

CLOSE

Explaining the Issues: Intermediary Liability

Explaining the Issues: Intermediary Liability

In our Explaining the Issues series, we explain legal issues faced by the media – this instalment covers intermediary liability.

What is an internet intermediary?

Defining what an ‘intermediary’ is can be challenging, because the term is broad and constantly evolving. The Council of Europe suggests intermediaries are service providers who enable communication to take place online, such as websites or ISPs. Intermediaries play an important part in how we exercise our freedom of expression and right to access information. For example, many of us rely on using search engines to find news articles, or on social media to express ourselves.

What is Internet intermediary liability?

Intermediaries can be liable for unlawful or harmful content that has been created and published by their users. For example:

  • Copyright infringements
  • Digital piracy
  • Trademark disputes
  • Network management
  • Spamming and phishing
  • “Cybercrime”
  • Defamation
  • Hate speech
  • Child pornography
  • “Illegal content”
  • Offensive (but legal) content
  • Censorship
  • Broadcasting and telecommunications laws and regulations
  • Privacy protection.

What does this mean for freedom of expression and digital rights?

Internet intermediaries play an important role in how we exercise our human rights. This is because they facilitate the space in which people are able to share information and express opinions. In his 2016 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression stated that:

[T]he contemporary exercise of freedom of opinion and expression owes much of its strength to private industry, which wields enormous power over digital space, acting as a gateway for information and an intermediary for expression.”

Our ability to freely express ourselves online depends on intermediaries being passive. Therefore, any action that makes an intermediary restrain or censor content on their platform can negatively impact the right to freedom of expression online. As a result, intermediary liability must be understood in relation to the prevention of harm, the protection of free speech and access to information, as well as in encouraging innovation and creativity.

Has Media Defence worked on any intermediary liability cases?

Media Defence co-ordinated a coalition of eight interveners in the case of Tamiz v UK. The case involved a British politician, Mr. Tamiz, who claimed his right to reputation had been violated because he was refused permission to sue Google Inc. for allegedly defamatory remarks on the Blogger.com platform.

The European Court of Human Rights balanced the right to reputation against the right to freedom of expression and found no violation. As a result, the intervention was successful. The Court highlighted “the important role that [internet service providers] such as Google Inc. perform in facilitating access to information and debate on a wide range of political, social and cultural topics.”

To read more about intermediary liability, see our Summary Modules on Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online, in particular
Module 3: Access to the Internet. For further reading, our Advanced Modules also cover intermediary liability in Module 5: Trends in Censorship by Private Actors.

 

Recent News

Kelly Duda: Bad Blood

Kelly Duda originally wrote this piece for Index on Censorship. Kelly Duda is an activist and producer and director of the documentary “Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal”. Duda travelled to Italy to offer his services as a prosecution witness in a trial about blood contamination. As a result, he now faces charges himself. […]

Read

UK violated journalist’s free speech rights by arresting, charging her under Protection from Harassment Act

The ECtHR has found that the UK violated the right to freedom of expression of a journalist when she was arrested and prosecuted. Rita Pal was charged under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, after she published a news article online and posted several Tweets about an individual who subsequently complained to the police. She […]

Read

Strasbourg court’s right to be forgotten decision will impact public interest reporting

In a worrying expansion of the application of the ‘right to be forgotten’ the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has decided that a journalist may be held liable for failing or refusing to de-index information published on the Internet. In Biancardi v Italy the applicant, an editor of a newspaper, complained that he […]

Read