Is overblocking defamatory?

[ewx]

If a user of an ISP tries to visit a website controlled by an identifiable legal person, which does not contain any pornography, but the ISP instead serves them a block page informing them that the website does contain pornography, has the person controlling the website been libeled by the ISP? (All three parties located in the UK.)

(If you think Cameron's latest wheeze won't lead to overblocking then you haven't been paying attention to the existing implementations.)

Comments

[aldabra]

They could just phrase it "The Government requires that we do not show you these pages. Here is a link to the Government's rationale." That's what I would do. Especially as it makes it clear who you should complain to, i.e., not me.

[naath.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's true at all.

If the page *is* pornography and the page-owner wants people to able to see their porn then they have a problem with the government; if the page *is not* pornography then the page-owner has a problem with the ISP('s software) which has incorrectly classified their page.

[aldabra]

I think the searcher has a problem with the Government if they can't see things they believe not to be porn.

But my wording specifically doesn't say that you can't see it because it's porn. The Government is going to have to specify how the ISPs can meet their obligations under whatever this law turns out to be (is google meant to check every gmail attachment, for example?), since it's not obvious what technology can block all and only what they want to be blocked, and that lets the ISP say they are blocking according to Government requirements. Presumably this is going to boil down to a list of words Cameron can't say on the BBC which we're not allowed to google for.