Comment by zombiepiratefrspace on 23/07/2014 at 07:38 UTC

18 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)

View submission: [Updated] Who runs /r/Holocaust? Each line represents a moderator overlap. [OC]

View parent comment

What I don't understand is this: Reddit may "save face" by not interfering and thus avoiding a media scandal, but are they unaware that they, by doing this, created horrible liability issues?

At some point, somebody will snap and sue them because "Reddit is hosting a forum connected to my brand name under my brand name and Reddit is refusing to clean it of the blatant racism."

Btw: Is Reddit not also trying to expand into Germany? Are they aware that Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in Germany and will actually be prosecuted? So *if* somebody from Germany sues because their brand is being smeared with Antisemitism, Reddit might be in a lot of trouble.

Replies

Comment by BPS-13 at 23/07/2014 at 14:03 UTC

10 upvotes, 1 direct replies

I'm fairly certain that a media website is under no obligation to hand over control of a particular page simply because someone holds the trademark on a word in the page title. Also fairly certain libel liability doesn't extend beyond the limits of editorial control to affect the host of a website with multi thousand unique visitors an hour.

And as far as the Germany/Nazi angle, unless they're hosting the site in Germany, German law doesn't apply.

Comment by Jest0riz0r at 23/07/2014 at 09:36 UTC

16 upvotes, 1 direct replies

I really hope something like that happens and reddit gets sued. Maybe they start changing stuff then.

Comment by Cloughtower at 23/07/2014 at 13:26 UTC

-1 upvotes, 0 direct replies

I feel as though there's some kind of bill protecting dissent...

Comment by Georgy_K_Zhukov at 23/07/2014 at 13:59 UTC

-1 upvotes, 2 direct replies

Reddit might be in a lot of trouble.

Not really. First Amendment. While it doesn't apply in Germany obviously, I would think that no US Court will allow any judgement in a German court to be enforced if the behavior is protected in the US (that is explicitly the case with slander/libel, so I don't know 100 percent if it would apply in this case, but I'm inclined to believe so).