Whether it's social media platforms like Facebook or video-sharing sites like YouTube, I these have become an integral part of our lives, even serving as a primary source of information for the public. As a result, a wide range of legal disputes has emerged.
Therefore, when defamatory or other unlawful information that infringes on someone's reputation appears on video platforms, it is in line with the principles of fairness and justice to impose an obligation on those who have the ability to remove such illegal content or prevent access to it.
For example, in a recent case, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that Google must pay 715,000 AUD (approximately NT$15.4 million) in damages for failing to remove defamatory videos in time. These videos led a politician to prematurely withdraw from politics. The case stemmed from a YouTube user creating false videos attacking a local politician, damaging their reputation and causing them to resign from office. The politician stated that they had notified YouTube to take the videos down, but the videos were not removed promptly, which ultimately brought the case to court.
According to the Australian court ruling, the plaintiff argued that their reputation was severely damaged by the false video, which led to their resignation from public office. Google, on the other hand, contended that the video was not a statement of "fact," but rather an "expression of opinion," and therefore should not be considered defamatory, thus they should not be held liable. In democratic nations, "freedom of speech" is considered the highest principle, so Google's argument was not entirely without merit. However, because the YouTube user who created the video had reached a settlement with the plaintiff, Google had no choice but to abandon this defense.
Additionally, the Australian court found that, according to YouTube's community guidelines, harassment, cyberbullying, and hate speech are strictly prohibited on the platform. YouTube has the ability to remove videos involving harassment, attacks, or bullying. Therefore, the court ruled that since Google had been notified that the I video contained defamatory content, and the truthfulness of the defamatory content could not be verified, Google should have removed the video. Instead, by continuing to allow the video to remain online, Google violated its own policies, which contributed to the resignation of the plaintiff, John Barilaro. After weighing the relevant evidence, the severity of the infringement, the harm to the plaintiff's mental state and reputation, and the need to restore the plaintiff's reputation, the court ordered Google to pay a compensation of 715,000 AUD to the plaintiff.
If a similar case were to occur in Taiwan, the court would also have a legal basis for awarding compensation. This is because Article 18 of the Civil Code stipulates that when a person's personality rights are infringed, they can request the court to remove the infringement, and they can also request measures to prevent such infringement if there is a risk of it occurring. Moreover, Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code states that if a person's reputation or personality rights are unlawfully infringed upon and the circumstances are serious, the victim, even without financial loss, can request compensation for the corresponding amount.
Of course, many people may wonder why Google has a legal obligation in this case, or question whether the determination of facts should not be the responsibility of the judiciary?
In fact, regarding the infringement liability of online platform operators, court rulings have established that the infringing act due to "omission" requires the premise that the actor has an affirmative duty to act in accordance with the law, contract, or public order. However, it has also been ruled that "if the online platform service provider, the defendant, has defamatory or infringing content on the platform that harms others' reputations and has the ability to remove such content, the provider is obligated to remove the content or prevent access to it, in line with fairness and justice." Furthermore, "the online platform service provider is not a judicial authority, and there is a high possibility of misjudging whether a user's action infringes upon others person's rights. To balance the user's freedom of expression and the protection of the victim's rights, the platform service provider's duty to take protective measures should be limited to situations where the provider "knows" or has "reasonable grounds to believe" that infringement exists on the platform."
Accordingly, if the platform provider is aware of or has reasonable grounds to believe that an infringing activity exists, they have the duty to take action by removing the infringing content or implementing other preventive measures. They cannot simply ignore the situation and refrain from taking any action.
Remind the public that "freedom of speech" is the cornerstone of a democratic system and must never be violated. However, when using platforms, it is crucial to ensure that your words or videos are based on facts to avoid unnecessary disputes.
Please take good care of yourself and protect others as well!
請參閱《美魔女律師教你生活不犯錯》 107-110頁