Search for: "Graham Smith"
Results 81 - 100
of 500
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Sep 2016, 6:00 am
Ferguson at Raw Story reports that publisher Hachette has filed a lawsuit against author Seth Grahame-Smith [read post]
24 Apr 2025, 4:53 am
Membou...but Rumpole says Arizona WR Tetairoa McMillan is a Raiders type of player- and new QB Geno Smith [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 12:30 am
Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides (or will do when the Act comes into force) a complete defence from a defamation claim for a website operator who can show that it did not post the statement on the website. This is a significant new protection for website operators. However the defence is significantly watered down for anonymous posts. It is defeated if the claimant can show: 1. That it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement 2.… [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 5:23 pm
One of the more intriguing aspects of the draft Online Safety Bill is the government’s insistence that the safety duties under the draft Bill are not about individual items of content, but about having appropriate systems and processes in place; and that this is protective of freedom of expression. Thus in written evidence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee scrutinising the draft Bill the DCMS said: “The regulatory framework set out in the draft Bill is entirely… [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 4:40 pm
One of the more perplexing provisions of the draft Online Safety Bill is its multi-level definition of legal but harmful content (“lawful but awful” content, to give it its colloquial name). The proposal that service providers’ safety duties under the Bill should apply to such content is in itself controversial, when users themselves – who are in the same position as authors of books – owe no duty of care in respect of the safety of their readers. Some… [read post]
31 May 2021, 4:52 pm
Two years on from the April 2019 Online Harms White Paper, the government has published its draft Online Safety Bill. It is a hefty beast: 133 pages and 141 sections. It raises a slew of questions, not least around press and journalistic material and the newly-coined “content of democratic importance”. Also, for the first time, the draft Bill spells out how the duty of care regime would apply to search engines, not just to user generated content sharing service providers. This… [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 4:14 pm
On 8 April 2019, spent the best part of a day reading the UK government’s Online Harms White Paper, I concluded that if the road to hell was paved with good intentions, this was a motorway. After full and further consideration, I have found nothing to alter that view. This is why. The White Paper First, a reminder of what the White Paper proposes. The government intends to legislate for a statutory ‘duty of care’ on social media platforms and a wide range of other internet… [read post]
31 May 2016, 11:17 am
That case, known as Smith v. [read post]
22 May 2024, 8:30 am
BNSF Railway Company (Restitution; Trespass) Graham v. White (McGirt v. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 5:19 am
Speakers include David Anderson, speakers from GCHQ and the Home Office, Graham Smith, Gordon Corera [read post]
30 Oct 2016, 7:42 am
In Smith v. Lind, 2016 U.S. Dist. [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 8:42 am
February [yes, we know ...],thanks to a Queen Mary Centre for Commercial Law Studies (CCLS) Herchel Smith [read post]
10 Feb 2021, 5:16 am
The UK having now cut its direct ties with EU law, what does its future hold for the intermediary liability protections in Articles 12 to 15 of the Electronic Commerce Directive? Until recently, the government’s policy has been taken to be as stated in its 2019 “eCommerce Directive guidance for businesses if there’s no Brexit deal”: “Immediately following the UK’s exit from the EU in a no deal scenario, the government will minimise disruption by prioritising… [read post]
19 Dec 2020, 2:35 am
The government has now published the Final Response to its Consultation on the April 2019 Online Harms White Paper. To recap, in the White Paper the government proposed to impose a “duty of care” on companies whose services host user-generated content or facilitate public or private online interaction between users. The duty of care would also apply to search engines. An intermediary in scope would have to take reasonable steps to prevent, reduce or mitigate harm… [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:59 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (2017 SCC 34). This is the case in which a small Canadian technology company, Equustek, asked the Canadian courts to grant an injunction against the well-known US search engine ordering it to de-index specified websites – not just on its Canadian domain google.ca, but on a worldwide basis. The injunction was an interim order pending trial of Equustek’s action against the operator of the… [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 9:44 am
Supreme Court decided Graham v. Florida. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 7:04 am
Back in July 2011 I commented on the Court of Appeal judgment in Newspaper Licensing Agency v Meltwater ([2011] EWCA Civ 890) and explained how the reach of digital copyright had accidentally been increased beyond that in the offline world. That was as a result of accepting that transient and temporary copies created in computer memory count as copies for copyright purposes. This potentially extended copyright control to all user activities involving a computer,… [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 4:08 pm
The decision of the European Court of Justice in Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB (Case C‑466/12, 13 February 2014) has established some important points about the legality of linking under EU copyright law: A clickable direct link to a copyright work made freely available on the internet with the authority of the copyright holder does not infringe. It makes no difference to that if a user clicking on the link is given the impression that the work is on the linking site. However, it seems that… [read post]
5 Mar 2007, 5:02 am
(Policy), Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID)At 4.45 pm: Richard Thomas, Information Commissioner; Graham [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 7:01 am
The question is, does Graham prohibit that under these circumstances? [read post]
