Internet giants seek full trial over defamatory video

A decision that a defamatory YouTube video be permanently removed from the internet should only be arrived at after a full trial of the matter, a High Court judge was told yesterday.

It was a fundamental legal principle that such a far- reaching order should not be the subject of an injunction hearing but of a full High Court case which would establish the definitive position on the matter, said Michael Howard SC, for Google and YouTube.

He was speaking during an application by his clients for a stay, pending appeal, on an injunction granted last month that steps be taken to permanently remove a video falsely accusing a student of taxi fare evasion.

Mr Justice Michael Peart had ordered experts on behalf of DCU student Eoin McKeogh, aged 23, to meet with experts for YouTube, Google, and Facebook to meet with a view to agreeing on how to remove it for good on a worldwide basis.

The three internet giants sought a stay on that order, while Mr McKeogh opposed any stay.

Google and YouTube wanted to appeal Mr Justice Peart’s decision because it involved a legal principle of great significance to them, Mr Howard said.

It was their position that the order involved a fundamental legal principle and jurisdiction, which could only be established at a full trial and not after an injunction hearing.

Mr Howard said his clients had done everything throughout this case to facilitate the removal of the video, including a facility which allows users to self-delete, and this and other services would stay in place pending an appeal and while any stay is in place.

Rossa Fanning BL, for Facebook, said the order made by the court was without precedent and would have devastating consequences for his client. Mr McKeogh wants to rid the internet of all the defamatory material but as the operator of only one website service, Facebook is not in a position to do that, he said.