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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll