<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Prof. Andrew Christie &#187; Defamation in Cyberspace</title>
	<atom:link href="http://achristie.com/category/defamation-in-cyberspace/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://achristie.com</link>
	<description>IP Professor &#124; Lawyer &#124; Arbitrator &#124; Mediator</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 08:02:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Google liable in Australia for defamation as a publisher and a re-publisher</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/google-liable-in-australia-for-defamation-as-a-publisher-and-a-re-publisher/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/google-liable-in-australia-for-defamation-as-a-publisher-and-a-re-publisher/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:40:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=3268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Australian court has ordered Google to pay $100,000 damages for defamatory material indexed by its search engine. In Duffy v. Google Inc, the Supreme Court of South Australia found that Google was liable for defamation as a primary publisher of both automatically-generated search result &#8220;snippets&#8221; and of auto-complete search suggestions, but only after it had [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/google-liable-in-australia-for-defamation-as-a-publisher-and-a-re-publisher/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We&#8217;re not the Internet content police, says ICANN</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/were-not-the-internet-content-police-says-icann/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/were-not-the-internet-content-police-says-icann/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:08:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Censorship of Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright in Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domain Names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governance of Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction in Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy in Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Marks in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=3170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ICANN has declared it is not, and cannot be, a content regulator. In a recent blog post, ICANN&#8217;s Chief Contract Compliance Officer, Allen R. Grogan, states ICANN &#8220;was never granted, nor was it ever intended that ICANN be granted, the authority to act as a regulator of Internet content&#8221;. Accordingly, despite calls for it to do so, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/were-not-the-internet-content-police-says-icann/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$A105,000 damages for defamation via Twitter and Facebook</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/a105000-damages-for-defamation-via-twitter-and-facebook/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/a105000-damages-for-defamation-via-twitter-and-facebook/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 07:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=2766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former Orange High School student has been ordered to pay damages of $105,000 for defamatory tweets and Facebook postings. The NSW District Court decision is believed to be the first time a Twitter defamation case has proceed to trial.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/a105000-damages-for-defamation-via-twitter-and-facebook/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NZ court adopts &#8216;noticeboard&#8217; reasoning on social media defamation</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/nz-court-adopts-noticeboard-reasoning-on-social-media-defamation/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/nz-court-adopts-noticeboard-reasoning-on-social-media-defamation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 08:22:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=2475</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A New Zealand judge has adopted the Tamiz v. Google &#8216;noticeboard&#8217; analogy for the hosts of blogging platforms when considering the liability of Facebook page hosts as publishers of third party content Courtney J in Wishart v Murray held that the host of a Facebook page has the power to both delete postings and block users, and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/nz-court-adopts-noticeboard-reasoning-on-social-media-defamation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google not liable for misleading auto-generated search terms</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/google-not-liable-for-misleading-auto-generated-search-terms/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/google-not-liable-for-misleading-auto-generated-search-terms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 04:24:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy in Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Marks in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=2243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A US court has ruled that automatically-generated search terms that are misleading do not constitute a common-law misappropriation or an invasion of privacy. Dissatisfied with the results of internet searches for her name, Beverly Stayart launched a legal campaign against internet search engines. In her third lawsuit, she contended that Google was in violation of Wisconsin misappropriation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/google-not-liable-for-misleading-auto-generated-search-terms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UK rules platform provider can be liable for defamatory blogs</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/uk-rules-platform-provider-can-be-liable-for-defamatory-blogs/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/uk-rules-platform-provider-can-be-liable-for-defamatory-blogs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=2164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Payam Tamiz v. Google Inc., the UK Court of Appeal has held that Google may be deemed a “publisher” of (and held liable for) defamatory user-generated content appearing in blogs hosted by Google after being notified of the content’s defamatory nature. Davis Wright Tremaine reports that although the judgment was ultimately in Google’s favor, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/uk-rules-platform-provider-can-be-liable-for-defamatory-blogs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Argentinian court rules on search engine liability</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/argentinian-court-rules-on-search-engine-liability/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/argentinian-court-rules-on-search-engine-liability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 01:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy in Cyberspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Marks in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=2114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Argentina Court of Appeals in Civil Matters, Division D, has ruled that unless web search engines have been duly notified about the existence of illicit content indexed by them, they are not liable for the content of third-party websites. As Obligado &#38; Cia reports, the Court of Appeals overturned a first instance ruling that Google and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/argentinian-court-rules-on-search-engine-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Internet defamation claims on the rise as online reviews impact the bottom line</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/internet-defamation-claims-on-the-rise-as-online-reviews-impact-the-bottom-line/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/internet-defamation-claims-on-the-rise-as-online-reviews-impact-the-bottom-line/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=2075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Internet defamation suits will increase in frequency as review sites become more prevalent in our everyday consumer transactions, explains Fredrikson &#38; Byron.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/internet-defamation-claims-on-the-rise-as-online-reviews-impact-the-bottom-line/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hyperlinks do not republish alleged defamatory material</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/hyperlinks-do-not-republish-alleged-defamatory-material/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/hyperlinks-do-not-republish-alleged-defamatory-material/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:01:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=2055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In In re Phila. Newspapers LLC, 690 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2012), the Third Circuit held, among other things, that linking to previously published material is not &#8220;republication&#8221; under the single publication rule, reports Holland &#38; Knight.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/hyperlinks-do-not-republish-alleged-defamatory-material/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Australian court orders Google to pay $200,000 damages for defamatory search results</title>
		<link>http://achristie.com/australian-court-orders-google-to-pay-200000-damages-for-defamatory-search-results/</link>
		<comments>http://achristie.com/australian-court-orders-google-to-pay-200000-damages-for-defamatory-search-results/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defamation in Cyberspace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://achristie.com/?p=1954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Victoria has ordered Google to pay damages of $200,000 for publishing search engine results found by a jury to be defamatory. In Milorad Trkulja v Google Inc, a jury found that certain images and web pages generated by the Google search engine in response to a query using the plaintiff&#8217;s name imputed that “the plaintiff [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://achristie.com/australian-court-orders-google-to-pay-200000-damages-for-defamatory-search-results/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
