From Delfi to Sanchez – when can an online communication platform be responsible for third-party comments? An analysis of the practice of the ECtHR and some reflections on the Digital Services Act
{"title":"From Delfi to Sanchez – when can an online communication platform be responsible for third-party comments? An analysis of the practice of the ECtHR and some reflections on the Digital Services Act","authors":"Päivi Korpisaari","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2148335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n While social media services offer a useful platform for obtaining information as well as presenting and commenting on opinions, people can still be silenced by fear of hate speech and insults on the Internet. As a result, the expanded freedom of expression can also reduce the range of opinions and information. This article identifies and analyses the conditions under which online communication platform administrators can be held liable for user-generated content. The focus is on the criteria laid down by the ECtHR in recent cases. The outcome is that liability is exceptional, arising mainly in cases of inciting hatred and violence. Although the Digital Services Act, with its notice-and-action mechanism, offers a cheaper, faster, and often more effective way of reducing insulting and defamatory speech than court proceedings, the impact of the mechanism on freedom of expression and freedom to conduct business must be considered.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2148335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
ABSTRACT
While social media services offer a useful platform for obtaining information as well as presenting and commenting on opinions, people can still be silenced by fear of hate speech and insults on the Internet. As a result, the expanded freedom of expression can also reduce the range of opinions and information. This article identifies and analyses the conditions under which online communication platform administrators can be held liable for user-generated content. The focus is on the criteria laid down by the ECtHR in recent cases. The outcome is that liability is exceptional, arising mainly in cases of inciting hatred and violence. Although the Digital Services Act, with its notice-and-action mechanism, offers a cheaper, faster, and often more effective way of reducing insulting and defamatory speech than court proceedings, the impact of the mechanism on freedom of expression and freedom to conduct business must be considered.
期刊介绍:
The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?