hakaret etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
hakaret etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

12 Mayıs 2014

12 Mayıs 2014, Pzt. Yrd. Doc. Dr. KEREM ALTIPARMAK ile CANLI YAYIN: SON DURUMLAR

Acik Radyo Bilgi Cağının Hukuku Programı
Yayin Tarihi: 12 Mayis 2014, Pazartesi 
Yayin Saati: 10.30 -11.00
Konu: Hakaret Sucu, MIT Kanunu, YouTube yasagi
Konuk: Yrd. Doc. Dr. Kerem Altiparmak
Hazirlayip Sunanlar: Avniye Tansug - Murat Lostar
Muzik: Nature Boy, Kurt Elling
Yayın Kopyası: 

6 Haziran 2013

TÜRKİYE'DE TWITTER GÖZALTILARI ya da "CHILLING EFFECT"

Dünden beri gündemin tepesine çıkıveren konulardan biri de İzmir'de pek çok gencin Twitter'da yaydıkları mesajlar yoluyla suç işledikleri iddiası ile gözaltına alınması oldu.

Bu konuda dün akşam Açık Dergi'de bazı görüşler paylaştık. Kerem Altıparmak ve Yaman Akdeniz'in Londra'dan yolladıkları Basın Açıklaması'nı da duyurduk.
Bu çocukların gözltına alınmasının çok önemli bir diğer sonucunun bu açıklamada da değinildiği gibi ifade özgürlüğü literatüründe "Chilling Effect": "Dalga Etkisi" diye adlandırılan, "topluma bir gözdağı verme" olabileceğinin de üzerinde durduk. Kayıtlar şurada: Açık Radyo
Murat Lostar da Twitter kullanıcılarının alması gereken tedbirleri teknik açıdan bir kere daha açıkladı...




3 Mart 2012

YARGIÇ EADY: "HAKARETAMİZ İÇERİKTEN BLOGGER.COM SORUMLU TUTULAMAZ"

Google victory as judge rules it can't be held responsible for defamatory blog posts | Mail Online
DON'T shoot the messenger: Victory for Google as top judge rules it can't be held responsible for defamatory blog posts



Aynı karar ile ilgili bir başka yorum:

User-generated Content and Defamation: New Judgment re Google’s Blogger.com

The High Court has given answers to some of the questions concerning liability for online defamation arising from alleged libel in comments attached to a post on Google’s Blogger.com. Was Google a publisher? Was it protected by the Defamation Act and/or the E-commerce Directive? Laurence Eastham summarises key points from the judgment.
The judgment given by Mr Justice Eady on 2 March in the High Court in the case Payim Tamiz v Google Inc [2012] EWHC 449 (QB) sheds considerable light on issues relating to liability for online defamation.

31 Ekim 2008

İKİ YENİ MAHKEME KARARI

Kanada mahkemesi hakaretamiz içeriğe verilen bağlantının, içerik sağlayıcı açısından sorumluluk doğurmadığına hükmetti: Haber + KArar
Avrupa Adalet Divanı (EJC) şirketlerin web sitelerinde 60 dakika içinde arayana geri dönülebilecek biçimde telefon numarası ve form bulunması gerektiğine hükmetti: Haber + KArar

3 Kasım 2007

İRAN'LI "BLOG" ÖNCÜSÜ HÜSEYİN DERAKŞAN ALEYHİNE DAVA AÇILDI!

Iranian Blogger Hossein Derakshan Sued for Defamation in Canada
Posted October 31st, 2007 by Sam Bayard
in





Hossein Derakshan, an Iranian-born blogger based in Toronto, reported yesterday that he had been sued for defamation in a Canadian court. Derakshan is a prominent figure in the history of the Iranian blogosphere. In 2001, he developed the technological solution that enabled Iranian bloggers to blog in Persian and published a widely-used set of instructions on "How to make a blog in Persian" using Blogger.com's free service. (For more information on Derakshan and the Iranian blogosphere, see Wikipedia's entry on "Iranian blogs" and Meron Rapoport's article, "King of the Iranian Bloggers," on Haaretz.com.)
The lawsuit is just the latest chapter in a dispute that began this summer. In late July, counsel for Mohammed Mehdi Khalaji, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, sent a letter to Derakshan, his domain registrar (GoDaddy.com, Inc.), and his hosting service (Hosting Matters, Inc.). The letter complained of defamatory statements allegedly made in a number of Derakshan's Persian-language posts in October 2005. According to the translation from Persian attached to the letter, these posts claimed that Khalaji was working for a right-wing think tank that openly supported the policy of "regime change" in Iran and was "giving ideas to the cruelest and dirtiest enemies of Iran and humanity." The letter also appears to take issue with a claim that Khalaji was "the only Iranian who has worked for both Khameni's office and Dick Cheney's, who intends to bomb Khalaji's former office building plus thousands of men, women and children living in the surrounding area." (Derakshan disputes the accuracy of the translations and Khalaji's interpretation of his statements.)
Khalaji's letter indicated that GoDaddy and Hosting Matters (both U.S. companies) were "implicated in the activities conducted [on Derakshan's blogs]," and that Khalaji's claim extended to these companies as publishers. It demanded that the recipients take down the offending posts, publish a letter of "contrition, apology, and retraction," and pay Khalaji $10,000. After a lengthy back-and-forth between Derakshan and Hosting Matters, the hosting service terminated Derakshan's accounts, and he moved his blogs to another hosting service. The blogs went back up after a few days, apparently with the disputed posts still in place.
Khalaji sued Derakshan in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on October 19. It does not look like Khalaji pursued further action against Hosting Matters or GoDaddy. This is somewhat surprising given that Derakshan probably doesn't have the $2,000,000 in requested damages and Canadian law does not have an analog of CDA 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)), which insulates service providers in the United States from liability for the statements of "another information content provider." But it's a truism by now that lawsuits of this kind are motivated more by a desire for personal vindication than for money.
This is a fascinating and difficult case because the statements fall into a grey area between spirited political argument and personal attack. It seems to me that most of the complained of statements are either opinion or hyperbole, and a reasonable reader likely would understand them to be so. But courts, at least courts in the United States, examine statements of opinion to determine if they are based on or presume underlying facts. If they do, they can still be actionable. We'd love insight from our readers on how Canadian libel law might change the analysis.
Kaynak: http://citmedialaw.org/blogger-hossein-derakshan-sued-defamation-canada