ISPs win Bulger case protection

Thomson and Venables: There are fears that their new identities will be published on the Web

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A judge has ordered alterations in a ban on revealing information about the killers of toddler James Bulger, ruling that it was unfair to Internet service providers.

The country's top woman judge said service providers (ISPs) could not be held responsible for all material published via their servers.

She ordered a measure of protection for ISPs if rogue material was made available, for example details about the killers whereabouts disclosed on a bulletin board.

Under the changes, providers would only be in violation of the ban if they knew offensive material had been or was likely to be placed on their server or failed to take "all reasonable steps" to prevent it.

IN-DEPTH The James Bulger Case   • Case overview   • Killers' new lives   • Internet threat   • Memories of horror   • Killers and victims   • Blunkett statement   • Timeline of events   From TIME   • Killer boys grow up   • Photo essay   Court rulings   • 1997: House of Lords   • 1999: European Court   • 2000: Lord Chief Justice   Related sites   • Justice for James   • UK Parole Board   News archive   • Pleas for restraint   • Press breach probed   • Reformers welcome move   • Parents' fury at release   • Freedom for killers   • Killers face hurdle   • Anger at decision   • Sentence review due   • European court ruling

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, convicted of the 1993 murder of two-year-old James Bulger, were released last month after eight years in homes for young offenders and given new identities.

Fearing attacks on the two, a restrictive injunction was granted in the names of the pair banning the English media from revealing their new names, physical details and whereabouts.

There had been fears vigilantes would publish up to date pictures of the pair -- aged 10 at the time of the killings but now 18 -- on the Internet to aid discovery of their whereabouts.

This, it was argued, would lead the overseas press to publish detailed information on their new lives and homes, and that be transmitted round the world in an instant via e-mail.

Demon Internet had gone to the High Court to argue that it would be unfair if ISPs were automatically found to be in contempt of court -- risking jail or a heavy fine -- if they were unable to prevent the disclosure of banned material.

"The injunction as it stands covers all content on our servers which is generated on the Internet worldwide," Demon's parent company, Thus plc, said in a statement.

The judge, President of the Family Division Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, was told was told that all the parties represented in court agreed that the original form of the order was "inappropriate" for the Internet.

Butler-Sloss approved alterations -- agreed by Demon and lawyers acting for Venables and the English Attorney-General -- which in effect says that ISPs will not be in breach of the injunction if they "take all reasonable steps" to prevent publication of banned material.

Mr Michael Tugendhat QC, for Thus plc, hinted when the judge asked if he was happy with the agreement reached that the company would have liked even more protection.

James Bulger's sadistic murder shocked Britain

He said: "Happy would not be the word, but we have all signed it."

Butler-Sloss reassured him: "There is a considerable degree of protection to Internet service providers in it."

Though American ISPs won a Supreme Court ruling last year that they were not responsible for material sent over the Web, the responsibility of ISPs for the content of Web sites remains a contentious issue in Europe.

In December Germany's highest civil court, the Bundesgerichtshof, convicted Frederick Töben of denying the historical reality of the Holocaust. Judges ruled that Töben's Web site at the Adelaide Institute in Australia violated German law, even though the instrument of speech originated from beyond Germany's physical border.

In a similar ruling, France's high court ruled against Yahoo! last year, requiring the company to use filtering technology to prevent visitors in France from accessing auctions on its U.S. site.

Although Yahoo! has a French site, authorities went after the U.S. site in court at the prompting of European activists. At the time, Nazi memorabilia, which is illegal under French law, could be found on the site. In January Yahoo! announced it was banning the sale of Nazi and Ku Klux Klan memorabilia on Web sites it hosted.

Last year in Britain the ISP in the Bulger case, Demon Internet, was sued for libel by a lecturer who said his name had been falsely associated with defamatory items posted on a Web site. The case was settled out of court, with Demon agreeing to pay Godfrey £15,000 ($21,000) damages plus £250,000 ($350,000) costs.

At the time, Demon said it would urge the government to recognise that service providers "should be not be liable for the millions of items carried on the Internet every day."

The judge gave her permission for ISPs to receive Tuesday's altered Bulger-case injunction via e-mail.

A regional British newspaper, the Manchester Evening News, has been told it faces contempt of court proceedings over an article published in the paper and on its Web site which allegedly breached the original injunction.

Its report, posted just hours after a parole board ordered Thompson and Venables to be set free, is alleged to have included details on the location of the two boys.