No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
ECtHR rules on liability of ISPs as a restriction of freedom of speech
Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg handed down its first case concerning the liability of intermediaries.
A ruling of the Estonian Supreme Court that imposed broad liability and a general monitoring obligation upon an internet news
portal vis-à-vis third party comments made on its website under one of the news items was found by the ECtHR to be proportionate
and justified interference with the freedom of expression.
Disinformation has recently become a salient issue, not just for researchers but for the media, politicians, and the general public as well. Changing circumstances are a challenge for system and societal resilience; disinformation is also a challenge for governments, civil society, and individuals. Thus, this book focuses on the post-truth era and the online environment, which has changed both the ways and forms in which disinformation is presented and spread. The volume is dedicated to the complex processes of understanding the mechanisms and effects of online propaganda and disinformation, its detection and reactions to it in the European context. It focuses on questions and dilemmas from political science, security studies, IT, and law disciplines with the aim to protect society and build resilience against online propaganda and disinformation in the post-truth era.
Miloš Gregor is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. He focuses on political marketing, communication, and analysis of propaganda and disinformation, specifically on the manipulative techniques and narratives deployed to persuade the audience.
Petra Mlejnková is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. She focuses on security studies, the Far Right, and the analysis of propaganda and disinformation, specifically from a security perspective—how these phenomena affect national and international security.
Every institutional response to disinformation and propaganda needs to be considered within the applicable legal framework for the protection of human rights. This includes the challenge of labelling the content under the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This chapter provides an analysis from this legal perspective based on the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It firstly describes the elements of freedom of expression and then deals with the labelling of disinformation within this framework. The focus is subsequently turned to the judicially inferred, permissible limitations on freedom of speech. A related issue is the underlying conflict with the freedom of the press and the media business. The final remarks concern the viability of internet service provider (co)liability for user-generated content.
Empirical research has revealed disparities of internet users’ online privacy attitudes and online privacy behaviors. Although users express concerns about disclosing personal data in the internet, they share personal and sometimes intimate details of their and others lives in various online environments. This may possibly be explained by the knowledge gap hypothesis which states that people are concerned about their privacy and would like to behave accordingly, but that lacking privacy literacy prevents them from reacting the ways that they think would most adequately reflect their attitudes and needs. To implement privacy literacy in future research and policy making, a comprehensive scale to measure privacy literacy will be suggested. The online privacy literacy scale (OPLIS) was developed based on an exhaustive review of prior literature on privacy literacy and a profound content analysis of different sources capturing a variety of aspects relevant to online privacy. The scale encompasses five dimensions of online privacy literacy: (1) Knowledge about practices of organizations, institutions and online service providers; (2) Knowledge about technical aspects of online privacy and data protection; (3) Knowledge about laws and legal aspects of online data protection in Germany; (4) Knowledge about European directives on privacy and data protection; and (5) Knowledge about user strategies for individual privacy regulation.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2436436
The so-called "Right to Be Forgotten or Erasure" (RTBF), article 17 of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation, provides individuals with a means to oppose the often persistent digital memory of the Web. Because digital information technologies affect the accessibility of information over time and time plays a fundamental role in biological forgetting, ‘time’ is a factor that should play a pivotal role in the RTBF. This chapter explores the roles that ‘time’ plays and could play in decisions regarding the retention or erasure of data. Two roles are identified: (1) ‘time’ as the marker of a discrete moment where the grounds for retention no longer hold and ‘forgetting’ of the data should follow and (2) ‘time’ as a factor in the balance of interests, as adding or removing weight to the request to ‘forget’ personal information or its opposing interest. The chapter elaborates on these two roles from different perspectives and highlights the importance and underdeveloped understanding of the second role.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.