A UK court has ruled that Internet giant, Google is not liable for 'internet graffiti' despite the fact that comments posted on its services may be offensive or libelous under the English defamation laws.

The ruling by Justice David Eady of the High Court that grants widespread immunity to the internet company, is simply a "platform provider" and should not be seen as a publisher of information.

"It is no doubt often true that the owner of a wall which has been festooned, overnight, with defamatory graffiti could acquire scaffolding and have it all deleted with whitewash", said the judge.

According to a report, Payam Tamiz, who is a law student and a former Conservative Party candidate, sued Google over reactions to an on-line blog that branded as a drug dealer and a thief.

Mr Tamiz, who last year stood as a Conservative Party candidate in local elections in Thanet, Kent, had filed the case over eight stinging comments that were made against him on Google's Blogger. com site. Users had accused Mr Tamiz of being a drug dealer and having stolen from his employers, among other things.

The judge pointed out that the comments may not be simply disregarded as vulgar abuse and it is not shocking that Mr Tamiz choose to file a lawsuit against Google because most of the comments were anonymous and are thus difficult to be traced.

Catrin Evans, representing Google has said that the company does not control any of the data on the service and it is just a neutral service provider and not a publisher.