AN INTERNET video clip falsely accusing a student of taxi fare evasion is still accessible outside the Republic, the High Court has been told.
Expert internet users can also access the material here and had done so as recently as yesterday morning, the court has heard.
The student has obtained temporary High Court orders preventing YouTube, Google, Facebook and a number of websites from republishing the video and accompanying material that wrongly identifies him as a man leaving a taxi without paying the fare. A fake Facebook page claiming to be the student’s was also removed.
The YouTube video was taken down after the orders were granted; it reappeared for a period before being taken down again, the court heard.
The student is now seeking injunctions permanently removing all the material until the full hearing of his action.
Pauline Walley SC, for the student, said yesterday that the material was still available outside the Republic despite the previous court orders. Internet experts had accessed it on laptops outside the court just before yesterday’s hearing, she added.
Ms Walley said she wanted the court to order that the material should also not be accessible outside the Republic. The court had previously found the student was completely innocent of the fare evasion allegations.
The student also wanted Facebook to provide a contact within its organisation with whom he could immediately deal concerning any breaches of the court order, rather than having to go through the company’s solicitor, which took more time, Ms Walley added. This was important because what could be a “small local fire” in internet terms could easily become a bush fire within 24 hours.
Ms Walley said she did not accept Facebook’s contention that it was not possible to implement screening and blocking of new attempts to post the material. Such actions were taken in relation to copyright, child pornography, incitement to hatred and religious material, depending on which country one was in.
Ms Walley said the person who had originally posted the defamatory material had been identified and had sent an email saying it was a mistake, he was sorry, and had taken the video down.
However, her client was alarmed to find the material kept reappearing “phoenix-like”, whereby, if one pieced together a jigsaw of key words, it could still be accessed long after the court order prohibiting republication.
Ms Walley said Facebook had agreed to provide a print-off of the impostor profile – which would show all its changes – but had said it would only do so if her client provided an indemnity in relation to third parties. This was an unfair demand of a 22-year-old student by a multibillion euro industry, she said.
Her client was also seeking its costs against Facebook and liberty to apply to the court should there be any further breaches of its orders.
Rossa Fanning, for Facebook, maintained there was no reason for this action against Facebook at all, particularly in circumstances where the person who allegedly committed the wrong was not before the court at all.
“We have no liability whatsoever albeit that the plaintiff has had a terrible experience,” he said.
The hearing before Mr Justice Michael Peart continues.