header-logo header-logo

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

Posting hate online

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 & Communications

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll