this is orders of magnitude less significant than big studios removing random youtube videos from the air, accusing them of copyright infringement, even ones that have no background music, just because it says bad things about something the studio worked on.
That could lead to a significant amount of prior restraint which would have the effect of restricting online speech in places where it is most useful. That would be much further-reaching than anything YouTube does.
The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing.
Nowhere does it say that Yelp was "held accountable" for anything.
It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict.
The sky is not falling.
"Glassdoor.com, which posts anonymous employee comments about companies to inform job-seekers about working conditions, says the ruling began to show up in letters demanding the removal of comments and disclosure of users’ identities almost immediately after it was handed down."
EDIT: nevermind, the response was in the wrong part of the thread.
Yelp was not a party to the case.
> It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict.
Yelp was ordered to do something, but Yelp did not receive any opportunity for a trial.
Someone posts my original work to Youtube. I sue the individual, and the court agrees that posting was illegal and orders the plaintiff to remove it. The plaintiff says that they no longer have the password. The court sends an order to Youtube saying that the should take it down. Now, there's a special procedure for this under the DMCA if the claim is copyright infringement, but are you saying that Youtube should be able to ignore the court order?
An identity thief applies for credit cards in my name. They are convicted, and the court orders the bank to cancel the credit card account that was fraudulently obtained. The bank is not a named party. Would you say that the bank should keep account until I sue them separately?
A children's toy is badly constructed and dangerous. The manufacturer is sued by an aggrieved parent. A court makes an award to the parent, and orders that sales of the toy be halted. All resellers receive a court order telling them to stop selling the product. Should they comply?
I'm not seeing the hazard in having companies obey court orders even if they are not named parties. Presumably there is a process where they can refuse and get a court hearing about the validity of the order? Or is the issue that there is no such process?
Edit:
I'm reading Volokh's amicus now (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3038335/Hassell-v...), which makes it clearer that the distinction is something like "because speech is different". I don't really understand his argument, though, or why he keeps using "allegedly libelous" to describe something a court has found to be libelous.
I think it's because he's arguing that the collection of comments (or reviews) published by Yelp is contextually different than the individual comment, and that one may be libelous and the other not. While there is some truth to this, I think there is a difference between a conscious compilation, and a "bulletin board" type system where posters can add whatever they wish without review.
I don't have a strong opinion here. I presumed I was missing some of the backstory, and was asking Josh because I respect his opinion on technical matters and wondered what made him seem so certain that this was an important principle to preserve.
As I look deeper, I think the key the "must uphold" side is the belief that choosing to quote another is an independent speech act, and needs independent consideration. Unlike copyright or dangerous products, libel is considered a purely civil affair, and thus does not have the same remedies that those do. My doubt is whether an "aggregator" site without independent editorial voice should be entitled to this protection.
A party to a trial (such as a named defendant) is afforded a variety of rights. Among many others, they receive legal notice of the case with sufficient time to prepare, can face their accuser in court, can defend themselves, provide testimony, file legal documents and motions, and many other things an interested party might wish to do. A third party doesn't automatically get those rights.
> Presumably there is a process where they can refuse and get a court hearing about the validity of the order? Or is the issue that there is no such process?
The issue is the default assumption that they must comply, rather than the usual innocent-until-proven-guilt process (or, in a civil case, preponderance-of-the-evidence). Consider a third party who received no legal notice of the existence of the case, has no opportunity to prepare or offer any defense, who effectively has the case decided in absentia, and who first hears about the case when they get a court order requiring them to do something. That doesn't seem reasonable.
(As with any generalization like this, some exceptions might apply. But that's the kind of thing court procedures like preliminary injunctions exist for: "something irreparable will happen if they don't stop now, before the case concludes". So even then, I think it makes sense for the third party to be a party to the case and for them to have the opportunity to challenge the preliminary injunction just as any other defendant could.)
If they want to overturn that court order, they can potentially do so, but the default assumption is that they must immediately comply with it or face legal penalties themselves. And depending on the nature of the court order, often they must comply while pursuing their own legal action, rather than having the opportunity to make a case in advance.
All that said, a third party may wish to voluntarily cooperate, in a case where they agree with the matter (or don't disagree and don't want the fight). And in some cases, they may have individual liability if they don't; for instance, a reseller of a recalled toy may themselves face liability if they don't cooperate with the recall, while they may have some legal protection or defense if they do cooperate.
YouTube silences you without a court order or anything.