Social Media and Freedom of Speech: The power of the server

0 Shares

It all began with Naashon Zalk, who with his House & Leisure editor wife attempted to defraud us at Whale Cottage Hermanus in October.  I posted a warning to other guest houses on Twitter, Facebook, and made an indirect mention of it on my blog.  Instead of paying us, Mr Zalk spent an incredible amount of energy on having our mentions of him removed on Facebook and our blog.   The Twitter mentions cannot be removed, as I too have learnt. 

It was the “Take-Down” request that I received from Hetzner, our server until last week, that alerted me to the power of the server in blocking Freedom of Speech, in their own self-interest of not being dragged into any legal matters.  Despite arguing for Freedom of Speech, Hetzner was quite clear about changes having to be made or else they would close down my website, which was like pointing a gun to my head, given that our website is our source of bookings.     

When I saw the disparaging and untruthful comments made about ourselves on This Tourism Weekly website, I approached the owner Martin Hatchuel, and requested that he remove the comments.  He refused.  We then used the now familiar “Take-Down” procedure, requesting of Hetzner that the three comments be removed.   Hetzner gave Hatchuel the same pressure – remove the three comments or we will close down your site.  Hatchuel refused, and Hetzner closed down his site.   This led to a Hatchuel-the-victim-at-the-hands-of-Chris-von-Ulmenstein blogpost by Carl Momberg, telling a very one-sided story, and not blaming Hetzner for this.    We wrote a blogpost in response to Momberg’s slander.   We were unable to request a “Take-Down” of Momberg’s post, as his website is hosted in the UK.    Ironically, quick as a shot and demonstrating his double standards, Momberg approached Hetzner, requesting deletions to our blogpost, which we had to make under duress of having our site closed down.   Not satisfied, Momberg had the whole blogpost taken down via Hetzner, despite us arguing for Freedom of Speech.   In a chain reaction, Michael Olivier, editor of Crush!, and the childish Twitterer David Cope of The Foodie Blog forced edits of blogposts referring to them via Hetzner.  

This, together with the request by Cape Town Tourism’s PR Manager Skye Grove, Michael Olivier and Carl Momberg to have the Whale Cottage Blog closed down completely, prompted the move of our website to an American server, which makes our site untouchable to any further “Take-Down” requests.    We have reinstated our censored blogpost and other edits.

Despite the right to freedom of speech in our constitution, and on the internet in general, South African servers (and I only have experience of Hetzner) do not apply this.  Whilst one is given an opportunity to respond and to refuse a “Take-Down” request, it became very clear to me that they are determined to not get on the wrong side of ISPA (Internet Service Provider Association), through which all “Take-Down” requests are channelled, and to not get involved in any potential legal action.

Excerpts of the ISPA Code of Conduct are the following:

*   “ISPA members must respect the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression

*   ISPA members must receive and investigate complaints made in accordance with this Code of Conduct, unless such complaints are frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious or in bad faith.

*   ISPA members must make all reasonable efforts to resolve complaints in accordance with the complaints procedure.

*   ISPA members must co-operate with ISPA in accordance with the complaints and disciplinary procedures and comply with any decisions taken by ISPA with respect to the Code of Conduct and complaint and disciplinary procedure.”

In our experience, it would appear that our Freedom of Speech, the very first point on the ISPA Code of Conduct, was violated by our server in requesting us to close down a blog post and to make editorial changes, given that most of these requested changes have been “frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious or in bad faith”!   We call on ISPA to relook its Code of Conduct, or more importantly its application, to allow responsible Freedom of Speech on the internet.

Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio: www.whalecottage.com  Twitter: @WhaleCottage

Please follow and like us:
error20
fb-share-icon3070
Tweet 27k
fb-share-icon20

WhaleTales Blog

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER AND KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST NEWS

We don’t spam!

Read our privacy policy for more info.

5 replies on “Social Media and Freedom of Speech: The power of the server”

  1. Hi Chris
    i agree that the law surrounding take-downs does not sufficiently protect freedom of speech but i am not sure that either Hetzner or ISPA aren responsible for this.

    have a look at chapter 11 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 – http://www.internet.org.za/ect_act.html#LIMITATION_OF_LIABILITY_OF_SERVICE_PROVIDERS which is the root cause

    ISPs cannot and should not be placed in a position where they act as form of court of law in evaluating the competing claims of two parties (one of whom, for example, alleges defamation the other stating that it is truth in the public benefit) but greater protection should be given to the publisher of the content. in the US this is done through having a put-back provision, i.e. the ISP receives a take-down notice and notifies its client; the client may then elect to issue a put-back notice which requires the ISP to put the content back up (or keep it up) while indemnifying the ISP against the consequences of doing so

    finally: i cannot see that it is the ISP which has attempted to violate your freedom of speech. that role belongs to those who issued the take-down notice…that the ISP does not want to become involved (and should not) seems clear from the responses to the various notices

  2. Hi Chris

    You are correct. There is pressure on ISP’s to remove content in response to a take down notice. And yes, this does affect freedom of expression negatively. But as Dominic correctly points out, neither Hetzner nor ISPA are responsible for this.

    The ECT Act has unwittingly affected freedom of speech and hosting companies get a lot of flak for this!

    The ECT Act was drafted in such a way that it wanted to avoid putting hosting companies in the difficult situation of having to look into the merits of alleged defamatory statements and decide whether i) a prima facie defamatory statement has been made or ii) whether the hosting company should have to find out whether a defence to the alleged defamatory statement is available before it removes or disables access to the information.

    All the ECT Act requires is that the hosting company respond “expeditiously” to a formal take down notice. If they do not, then the indemnity from liability which the ECT Act gives to them falls away and they can be held liable for contributory negligence. This puts the hosting company between a rock and a hard place: they are placed in an invenviable position – not of their own doing – and are often seen as a “tactical target” in a defamation action as Plaintiffs threaten to go after them, rather than after the primary publisher.

  3. Thank you for your contribution Lance. You have not declared that you act for Hetzner.

    Chris

  4. Bloody inconvenient but dump your service provider, send them a tweet, if they are on it and get a new one! i recommend my lot – kingsley
    http://www.kingsley.co.za/
    They have been around since the internet started up in South Africa and they haven’t sold out to the big multinational servers who are massively overpriced!
    cheers

Comments are closed.