However, if the website provider allows such (negative) comment from its users, they may face legal consequences. This is indeed what happened with the local information and ratings portal dialo.de, as its management, dialo GmbH explained in a recent Press Release.

The trigger was a critical comment posted by a member, concerning a coin-collector transaction. In the user’s assessment, a complaint was noted stating that in his opinion, an unfair sales tactic was used. The negatively rated organization involved then called in their lawyers. Since the management of dialo.de declined to respond to a court order from the Düsseldorf Judicial System to remove the content, they now face prosecution, as explained in the press release. The reasoning for not giving in to this demand, clearly seems that in so capitulating, the entire credibility of the ratings and recommendation website would be at risk. “We stand firm for our members and fight for the right to deliver both positive, and justifiable ‘negative’ ratings” said Director of dialo.de, Peter Chlosta. In addition, according to Chlosta, dialo.de gives all firms who perceive themselves as unfairly rated, the chance to respond with a statement detailing their position on the issue at hand. As a result, it is even less understandable why the firm with the bad rating immediately chose to take legal steps.

dialo GmbH probably can afford to be optimistic, as their position has been reinforced by previous court decisions, which upheld the right to freedom of speech. An example quoted by dialo.de in the press release is that of case concerning the school pupil-portal “spickmich.de” [‘cribme’ UK]. The Cologne regional court of appeal decided in November 2007, rejecting the interim order of a teacher versus the website, challenging her rating there. The decision means that even teachers must tolerate/accept their bad ratings on the school-pupil site, as long as no defamatory comment is cited.

However, if the court now sees the case differently, the result will be precedent setting, and could mean the end of justified criticism on ratings portals. In this event, the question remains – what use would these portals retain for their users?

Web2.0 portals that depend on user-generated content, haven’t had it particularly easy in Germany. The courts here tend to an enterprise-unfriendly stance as regards the expression of the opinions of users, in blogs and forums. This is indicated in rulings by the Hamburg courts (among others) against the Heise Zeitschriften Verlag [‘Heise Newspaper Publishers’] and the media journalist Stefan Niggemeier. In these cases, the respective management immediately deleted controversial postings by users; however the courts ruled that this action was not enough, and that the comments should have been screened in advance by the portal administration.

Cause of these problems is seen to be a ‘telemedia’ law, based on the EU-Guidelines, which allows the courts a wide playing field – contrary to other EU countries and the USA, where the liability of forums is clearly regulated. The Hamburg court regularly uses this broad spectrum, mostly ruling against the website administrators. This forces the companies to take precautions which are no longer practicable, and which ultimately jeopardize the future of the “collaboweb”. So, for example, the requirement that all comments are now legally required to be approved before publishing – this is not only far too much trouble for the website controllers, but it will also discourage or prevent any free discussion in forums or blogs.

Question 1: Does such a trend mean the end for forums as well as communication possibilities within blogs (at least in Germany)?

Question 2: And what point is there for Web2.0 undertaking such as dialo.de, when only positive ratings are allowed?