{"title":"Odpowiedzialność usługodawcy za udostępnianie w internetowych serwisach społecznościowych treści przestępnych związanych z publicznym propagowaniem faszystowskiego lub innego totalitarnego ustroju państwa według projektu ustawy o ochronie wolności słowa w","authors":"Anastazja Kołodziej","doi":"10.19195/2300-7249.43.4.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Having in mind the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services, the article presents selected issues in the field of strict liability of the service provider in the form of administrative penalties for publishing on social media criminal content or content that is related to it, in the form of praising or exhorting to commit the crime prohibited under Art. 256 of the Penal Code according to the Draft of the Law on the Protection of Freedom of Speech on Social Media. It presents selected issues concerning inaccuracies and imprecise definitions of the notions of service provider, user, and illegal content, especially in the context of content that does not exhaust the features of a prohibited act under Art. 256 of the Penal Code. It describes also the procedure to be followed in the event of the user’s complaint about blocking their content, profile or a complaint about disseminating illegal content. The author concludes that the assessment of illegal content that does not exhaust the features of a crime under Art. 256 of the Penal Code, but is related to it, in the form of praising or exhorting to commit it, will belong to the Freedom of Speech Committee. Additionally, the regulations of the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services and the Draft of the Law on the Protection of Freedom of Speech on Social Media are inconsistent because, on one hand, after the so-called flagging of the content on social media, the service provider is obliged to remove illegal content (Art. 14 of the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services), while, on the other hand, according to the commented draft of the law, he is exposed to proceedings before the Freedom of Speech Committee and its arbitrary classification of content as legal or illegal.","PeriodicalId":173985,"journal":{"name":"Studia nad Autorytaryzmem i Totalitaryzmem","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia nad Autorytaryzmem i Totalitaryzmem","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19195/2300-7249.43.4.38","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
铭记法律提供的电子服务,本文提出了选择问题领域的服务提供者的严格责任在行政处罚的形式发布在社交媒体上刑事内容或内容相关,赞扬或劝说的形式提交犯罪禁止艺术。256年刑法根据草案的法律保护言论自由的社会媒体。它提出了有关服务提供者、用户和非法内容概念的不准确和不精确定义的选定问题,特别是在内容没有穷尽《刑法》第256条所禁止的行为的特征的情况下。它还描述了在用户投诉阻止其内容、个人资料或投诉传播非法内容时应遵循的程序。作者的结论是,没有穷尽刑法第256条规定的犯罪特征,但以赞扬或劝诫的形式与之相关的非法内容的评估将属于言论自由委员会。此外,《电子服务提供法》的规定与《社交媒体言论自由保护法(草案)》的规定不一致,因为一方面,在对社交媒体上的内容进行所谓的“标记”后,服务提供者有义务删除非法内容(《电子服务提供法》第14条),而另一方面,根据法律评论草案,他将面临言论自由委员会(Freedom of Speech Committee)的诉讼,以及该委员会对内容的任意合法或非法分类。
Odpowiedzialność usługodawcy za udostępnianie w internetowych serwisach społecznościowych treści przestępnych związanych z publicznym propagowaniem faszystowskiego lub innego totalitarnego ustroju państwa według projektu ustawy o ochronie wolności słowa w
Having in mind the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services, the article presents selected issues in the field of strict liability of the service provider in the form of administrative penalties for publishing on social media criminal content or content that is related to it, in the form of praising or exhorting to commit the crime prohibited under Art. 256 of the Penal Code according to the Draft of the Law on the Protection of Freedom of Speech on Social Media. It presents selected issues concerning inaccuracies and imprecise definitions of the notions of service provider, user, and illegal content, especially in the context of content that does not exhaust the features of a prohibited act under Art. 256 of the Penal Code. It describes also the procedure to be followed in the event of the user’s complaint about blocking their content, profile or a complaint about disseminating illegal content. The author concludes that the assessment of illegal content that does not exhaust the features of a crime under Art. 256 of the Penal Code, but is related to it, in the form of praising or exhorting to commit it, will belong to the Freedom of Speech Committee. Additionally, the regulations of the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services and the Draft of the Law on the Protection of Freedom of Speech on Social Media are inconsistent because, on one hand, after the so-called flagging of the content on social media, the service provider is obliged to remove illegal content (Art. 14 of the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services), while, on the other hand, according to the commented draft of the law, he is exposed to proceedings before the Freedom of Speech Committee and its arbitrary classification of content as legal or illegal.