header-logo header-logo

Posting hate online

21 July 2017 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7755 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Social media companies are facing mounting criticism for failing to police harmful or illegal content on their sites, as Chris Bryden & Michael Salter explain

  • There is a growing opinion that social media companies should not be allowed simply to host content that can be extreme without consequence.

As the world becomes ever more interconnected and dependent upon the internet and in particular social media, governments are finally waking up to the risks that such platforms can pose. Recently a number of nations, including the UK, have noted the risk that social media can pose. On 1 May 2017 the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee criticised social media companies for the harm that their platforms can cause by failing to act on illegal or harmful content.

The gist of the criticism is that social media providers have a duty as content providers to police the posts that they carry – a position first postulated by the authors in their paper ‘I can see you: harassment and stalking on the Internet’ ( Information &

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll