Case Analysis on the Liability of Internet Content Provider for Contempt of Court

Teoh Shu Yee, Safinaz Mohd. Hussein, Shahrul Mizan Ismail

Abstract


Peguam Negara Malaysia v Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 2 MLJ 652 set a precedent as the internet content provider was found guilty of contempt of court for publishing readers’ postings containing contemptuous comments. Due to technological advancement, people can freely express their opinions through various online platforms, including social media, by linking everyone nationwide and globally. In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of expression where Malaysian netizens can comment on the administration of justice using various online platforms, including social media. However, freedom of expression is not an absolute right. This study discusses the issue of liability on the internet content provider in contempt of court over comments posted by third-party subscribers. This study implemented a qualitative method to analyse the issue of duty and liability of the host platform provider. The findings from this study can be used to examine the extent of the internet content provider’s liability for the impugned comment by the third party. Therefore, this study proposed clear guidelines for internet content providers for contemptuous comments posted online by third-party subscribers.


Keywords


Internet content provider; internet intermediaries; freedom of expression; contemptuous comments, contempt of court

Full Text:

PDF

References


-8EC Directive 2000/31. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:32000L0031 [6 November 2021].

Angelopoulos, C. & Smet, S. 2016. Notice-and-fair- balance: How to reach a compromise between fundamental rights in European intermediary liability. Journal of Media Law 8(2): 266-301.

Cooray, M. 2015. The law relating to ISPS Liability in Malaysia and policy strategies that service provider could adopt to avoid third party liability. Malayan Law Journal 2.

Deturbide, M. 2000. Liability of ISPs for defamation in the US and Britain: Same competing interests, different responses. J Info L & Tech 3: 73.

European Commission. Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. http://ec.europa.eu/ justice/fundamental-rights/files/hate_speech_code_ of_conduct_en. pdf [6 November 2021].

Fernandez, G. & Pangalangan, R.A. 2015. Spaces and responsibilities: review of foreign laws and an analysis of Philippine laws on intermediary liability. Philippine Law Journal 89(4): 761-801.

Foong, C.L. 2012. Black day for internet users. http:// foongchengleong. com/tag/evidence-act-1950/ [6

November 2021].

Frosio, G.F. 2017. From horizontal to vertical: An intermediary liability earthquake in Europe. Oxford Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 12: 565. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2956859

Ida Shafinaz bt Mohamed Kamil & Ida Madieha bt Abdul Ghani Azmi. 2020. Gatekeepers liability for internet intermediaries in Malaysia: Way forward. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law 21(4): 23-31.

Jurkevicius, V. & Sidalauskeine, J. 2021. Civil liability of companies for anonymous comments posted on their sites: A criterion of potential consequences of liability. Business, Management and Economic Engineering 19(1): 1-11.

Khaitan & Co. 2021. India: Intermediaries and Digital Media Rules 2021. Mondaq. https://www.mondaq. com/india/social-media/1044060/intermediaries-and- digital-media-rules-2021 [6 November 2021].

Klonoski, R. 2013. The case for case studies: Deriving theory from evidence. Journal of Business Case Studies 9(2): 261-266.

Kumayama, K.D. 2009. A right to pseudonymity. Arizona Law Review 51: 427.

Laidlaw, E.B. & Young, H. 2018. Internet intermediary liability in defamation. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 56(1):112-161.

Law Commission Consultation Paper No 209. 2012. Contempt of Court. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/ app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court.pdf [6November 2021].

Longke, T. 2019. On an internet service provider’s content management obligation and criminal liability. Journal of Eastern-European Criminal Law 1: 145-158.

Lumby, C., Green, L. & Hartley, J. 2009. Untangling the net: the scope of content caught by mandatory internet filtering. Perth, Australia: Edith Cowan University. This Report is posted at Research Online. https:// ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks/7120 [6 November 2021].

Perset, K. 2010. The economic and social role of internet intermediaries. OECD Digital. https://www.oecd.org/ digital/ieconomy/44949023.pdf [6 November 2021].

Peters, M. 2012. Malayan Law Journal 6 MLJ ciii: 1-12. Radoja, K.K. 2020. Freedom of expression on the internet – Case 18/18 Eva Glawisching-Pieczek v Facebook Ireland Limited. Balkan Social Science Review 15:7- 25.

Siong, S.Y. 2017. Evaluating the statutory test for sub judice contempt in Singapore. Singapore Law Review 35: 185-218.

Suzi Fadhilah bt Ismail, Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi & Mahyuddin Daud. 2018. Transplanting the United States’ style of safe harbour provisions on internet service providers via multilateral agreements: Can one size fit all? IIUMLJ 26(2): 369-400.

Valcke, P., Kuczerawy, A. & Ombelet, P.J. 2016. Did the Romans get it right? What Delfi, Google, eBay, and UPC TeleKabel Wien have in common. In The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers, edited by Floridi, L. & Taddeo, M. Springer.

Weber, P. 2014. Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society 16: 941-957. doi: 10.1177/1461444813495165.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.