An Estonian news site was responsible for abusive comments posted by its readers, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled. Though the ruling appears to contradict provisions within European law giving such sites safe harbor, a legal expert said its impact likely will be limited.

The unanimous ruling from seven judges suggested that if a commercial site allowed anonymous comments, it is both practical and reasonable for the site owner to be held responsible for them.

The case centers on an article Delfi SA, one of Estonia’s most popular news sites, ran in January 2006, regarding a ferry company’s decision to change its routes. The change delayed the opening of cheaper ice roads to outlying islands.

Users added some 185 comments, about 20 of which contained personal threats and offensive language toward the ferry company’s majority shareholder. The ferry company sued and in April 2006 was awarded 5,000 Estonian kroon (about $430).

After exhausting appeals within Estonia, Delfi appealed, unsuccessfully, to the ECHR.

Yesterday’s ECHR ruling said: “The applicant company [Delfi], by publishing the article in question, could have realized that it might cause negative reactions against the shipping company and its managers and that, considering the general reputation of comments on the Delfi news portal, there was a higher-than-average risk that the negative comments could go beyond the boundaries of acceptable criticism and reach the level of gratuitous insult or hate speech.”

The court also said that Delfi had a commercial interest in having an active comment section. “The number of comments had an effect on the number of visits to the portal and on the applicant company’s revenue from advertisements published on the portal. Thus, the applicant company had an economic interest in the comments.”

The court found that the Estonian courts hadn’t infringed Delfi’s rights.

While the ruling appears troublesome to site operators, in fact, it is not as problematic as it might seem.

A spokeswoman for the ECHR made it clear that the ruling was only in relation to the particulars of Estonian law and was not applicable to other cases, except by way of case law. “All this tells us is about Estonian law,” she said. “It is not applicable to other countries.”

According to Jonathan Ball, a lawyer at London-based Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, by going to the ECHR, which is not a body of the European Union, rather than the European Court of Justice, which is, the ruling concerns only the human rights involved, not the provisions of the European directive that can extend to site owners safe harbor for users’ comments.

“The court was not looking at the law of defamation in Estonia, nor at the safe-harbor directive,” Mr. Ball said. “Does this set some sort of precedent in international law [on comments]? No, I don’t think it does. Had it gone the other way, it wouldn’t have had that effect, either. If you commit defamation, that is a matter for national courts. Good luck in bringing that to the court of Human Rights.”

Delfi did not respond to requests for comment.

The judgment isn’t final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. If it believes so, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If not, the original judgment becomes final on that day.

http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2013/10/11/news-site-held-responsi...