Freedom of expression
Senftleben, M.; Quintais, J.; Meiring, A.
How the EU Outsources the Task of Human Rights Protection to Platforms and Users: The Case of UGC Monetization Journal Article
In: Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 38, iss. 3, pp. 933-1010, 2024.
@article{nokey,
title = {How the EU Outsources the Task of Human Rights Protection to Platforms and Users: The Case of UGC Monetization},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Quintais, J. and Meiring, A.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4421150
https://btlj.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/0004_38-3_Senftleben.pdf},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-01-23},
urldate = {2023-10-12},
journal = {Berkeley Technology Law Journal},
volume = {38},
issue = {3},
pages = {933-1010},
abstract = {With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same \textendash highly problematic \textendash approach.
Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening \textendash and potential loss \textendash of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach.
Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.
Dommering, E.
Opinie: Koranverbrandingen in Zweden, Denemarken en Nederland Journal Article
In: Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), iss. 29, no. 2125, pp. 2480-2482, 2023.
@article{nokey,
title = {Opinie: Koranverbrandingen in Zweden, Denemarken en Nederland},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/njb_2023_29/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-10-05},
journal = {Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB)},
number = {2125},
issue = {29},
pages = {2480-2482},
abstract = {De stelling van onder andere de Minister van Justitie dat het verbranden van boeken nu eenmaal mag in onze rechtsstaat berust op een dubbele dwaling: \'{e}\'{e}n omtrent het object van de vrijheid van meningsuiting en \'{e}\'{e}n omtrent hoe in deze tijd van sociale media om te gaan met het conflict tussen de vrijheid van meningsuiting en de vrijheid van godsdienst. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
De stelling van onder andere de Minister van Justitie dat het verbranden van boeken nu eenmaal mag in onze rechtsstaat berust op een dubbele dwaling: één omtrent het object van de vrijheid van meningsuiting en één omtrent hoe in deze tijd van sociale media om te gaan met het conflict tussen de vrijheid van meningsuiting en de vrijheid van godsdienst.
Quintais, J.; Appelman, N.; Fahy, R.
Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation Journal Article
In: German Law Journal, 2023.
@article{nokey,
title = {Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},
author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},
doi = {10.1017/glj.2023.53},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-07-11},
journal = {German Law Journal},
abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T\&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T\&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T\&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T\&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T\&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T\&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.
van Daalen, O.
The right to encryption: Privacy as preventing unlawful access Journal Article
In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 49, 2023.
@article{nokey,
title = {The right to encryption: Privacy as preventing unlawful access},
author = {van Daalen, O.},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000146},
doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105804},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-05-23},
journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},
volume = {49},
abstract = {Encryption technologies are a fundamental building block of modern digital infrastructure, but plans to curb these technologies continue to spring up. Even in the European Union, where their application is by now firmly embedded in legislation, lawmakers are again calling for measures which would impact these technologies. One of the most important arguments in this debate are human rights, most notably the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression. And although some authors have in the past explored how encryption technologies support human rights, this connection is not yet firmly grounded in an analysis of European human rights case law. This contribution aims to fill this gap, developing a framework for assessing restrictions of encryption technologies under the rights to privacy and freedom of expression as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and the Charter of Fundamental rights in the European Union (the Charter). In the first section, the relevant function of encryption technologies, restricting access to information (called confidentiality), is discussed. In the second section, an overview of some governmental policies and practices impacting these technologies is provided. This continues with a discussion of the case law on the rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, arguing that these rights are not only about ensuring lawful access by governments to protected information, but also about preventing unlawful access by others. And because encryption technologies are an important technology to reduce the risk of this unlawful access, it is then proposed that this risk is central to the assessment of governance measures in the field of encryption technologies. The article concludes by recommending that states perform an in-depth assessement of this when proposing new measures, and that courts when reviewing them also place the risk of unlawful access central to the analysis of interference and proportionality.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Encryption technologies are a fundamental building block of modern digital infrastructure, but plans to curb these technologies continue to spring up. Even in the European Union, where their application is by now firmly embedded in legislation, lawmakers are again calling for measures which would impact these technologies. One of the most important arguments in this debate are human rights, most notably the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression. And although some authors have in the past explored how encryption technologies support human rights, this connection is not yet firmly grounded in an analysis of European human rights case law. This contribution aims to fill this gap, developing a framework for assessing restrictions of encryption technologies under the rights to privacy and freedom of expression as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and the Charter of Fundamental rights in the European Union (the Charter). In the first section, the relevant function of encryption technologies, restricting access to information (called confidentiality), is discussed. In the second section, an overview of some governmental policies and practices impacting these technologies is provided. This continues with a discussion of the case law on the rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, arguing that these rights are not only about ensuring lawful access by governments to protected information, but also about preventing unlawful access by others. And because encryption technologies are an important technology to reduce the risk of this unlawful access, it is then proposed that this risk is central to the assessment of governance measures in the field of encryption technologies. The article concludes by recommending that states perform an in-depth assessement of this when proposing new measures, and that courts when reviewing them also place the risk of unlawful access central to the analysis of interference and proportionality.
Senftleben, M.; Quintais, J.; Meiring, A.
In: 2023.
@article{nokey,
title = {Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Quintais, J. and Meiring, A.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4421150},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-26},
abstract = {With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same \textendash highly problematic \textendash approach.
Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening \textendash and potential loss \textendash of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach.
Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.
Hins, A.
Annotatie bij Rechtbank Noord-Holland 28 december 2022 (Hendriks/Unibail Rodamco Nederland Winkels B.V.) Journal Article
In: Mediaforum, iss. 1, no. 4, pp. 49-51, 2023.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Rechtbank Noord-Holland 28 december 2022 (Hendriks/Unibail Rodamco Nederland Winkels B.V.)},
author = {Hins, A.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_mediaforum_2023_nr4/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-25},
journal = {Mediaforum},
number = {4},
issue = {1},
pages = {49-51},
abstract = {De professionele nieuwsfotograaf Hendriks wil foto's maken in een groot winkelcentrum, maar krijgt daarvoor geen toestemming van de exploitant Unibail Rodamco. Hendriks vordert bij de rechtbank een verklaring voor recht dat het weigeren van de toestemming onrechtmatig is. De rechtbank wijst de vordering af omdat Hendriks nog wel foto's mag maken met niet-professionele apparatuur, zoals een mobiele telefoon. In de annotatie wordt ingegaan op de horizontale werking van artikel 10 EVRM en de botsing van diverse grondrechten: de vrijheid van nieuwsgaring, het recht op eigendom, de vrijheid van onderneming en het recht op privacy.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
De professionele nieuwsfotograaf Hendriks wil foto's maken in een groot winkelcentrum, maar krijgt daarvoor geen toestemming van de exploitant Unibail Rodamco. Hendriks vordert bij de rechtbank een verklaring voor recht dat het weigeren van de toestemming onrechtmatig is. De rechtbank wijst de vordering af omdat Hendriks nog wel foto's mag maken met niet-professionele apparatuur, zoals een mobiele telefoon. In de annotatie wordt ingegaan op de horizontale werking van artikel 10 EVRM en de botsing van diverse grondrechten: de vrijheid van nieuwsgaring, het recht op eigendom, de vrijheid van onderneming en het recht op privacy.
van Daalen, O.
Fundamental rights assessment of the framework for detection orders under the CSAM proposal Technical Report
2023.
@techreport{nokey,
title = {Fundamental rights assessment of the framework for detection orders under the CSAM proposal},
author = {van Daalen, O.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/csamreport/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-22},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 18 oktober 2022 (Chohan) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 12, no. 118, pp. 2088-2090, 2023.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 18 oktober 2022 (Chohan)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_nj_2023_118/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-20},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {118},
issue = {12},
pages = {2088-2090},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 7 oktober 2022 (X / ROC-Nijmegen) Journal Article
In: Mediaforum, iss. 1, no. 3, pp. 43-45, 2023.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 7 oktober 2022 (X / ROC-Nijmegen)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_mediaforum_2023_1/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-03-30},
journal = {Mediaforum},
number = {3},
issue = {1},
pages = {43-45},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Dommering, E.
In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2022, iss. 4, pp. 219-227, 2023.
@article{nokey,
title = {Polen is plotseling de verdediger van de Europese grondwet. Een beschouwing over de zaak Polen/Europees Parlement: HvJ EU 22 april 2022, zaak C-401/19},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/auteursrecht_2022_4/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-01-31},
urldate = {2023-01-31},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
volume = {2022},
issue = {4},
pages = {219-227},
abstract = {Dit artikel bevat een inleiding waarin de verandering in de communicatienetwerkomgeving wordt geschetst om te verduidelijken dat het systeem van de e-Commercerichtlijn niet goed meer past, maar waar toch nog dikwijls aan wordt gerefereerd (par. 1). Vervolgens wordt stilgestaan bij de constitutionele toetsing die het VEU introduceert (par. 2). Hiermee hangt samen dat een abstracte constitutionele toetsing aan de beperkingsclausules van het Handvest ingewikkeld is, een aspect dat in deze vorm in het auteursrecht nog niet eerder aan de orde is geweest (par. 3). Dat een dergelijke constitutionele
toetsing heel verschillend kan worden aangepakt, blijkt uit de conclusie van de A-G en het Hof, die daarom tegenover de aanpak van het Hof wordt gezet (par. 4 en 5). Het artikel rondt af met een analyse dat de inzet van de zaak is vrijheid van meningsuiting, maar dat het resultaat is meer overheidsinvloed op de filtertechnieken die censuur moeten voorkomen (par. 6).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Dit artikel bevat een inleiding waarin de verandering in de communicatienetwerkomgeving wordt geschetst om te verduidelijken dat het systeem van de e-Commercerichtlijn niet goed meer past, maar waar toch nog dikwijls aan wordt gerefereerd (par. 1). Vervolgens wordt stilgestaan bij de constitutionele toetsing die het VEU introduceert (par. 2). Hiermee hangt samen dat een abstracte constitutionele toetsing aan de beperkingsclausules van het Handvest ingewikkeld is, een aspect dat in deze vorm in het auteursrecht nog niet eerder aan de orde is geweest (par. 3). Dat een dergelijke constitutionele
toetsing heel verschillend kan worden aangepakt, blijkt uit de conclusie van de A-G en het Hof, die daarom tegenover de aanpak van het Hof wordt gezet (par. 4 en 5). Het artikel rondt af met een analyse dat de inzet van de zaak is vrijheid van meningsuiting, maar dat het resultaat is meer overheidsinvloed op de filtertechnieken die censuur moeten voorkomen (par. 6).
toetsing heel verschillend kan worden aangepakt, blijkt uit de conclusie van de A-G en het Hof, die daarom tegenover de aanpak van het Hof wordt gezet (par. 4 en 5). Het artikel rondt af met een analyse dat de inzet van de zaak is vrijheid van meningsuiting, maar dat het resultaat is meer overheidsinvloed op de filtertechnieken die censuur moeten voorkomen (par. 6).
Fahy, R.; Voorhoof, D.
Freedom of Expression and the EU’s Ban on Russia Today: A Dangerous Rubicon Crossed Journal Article
In: Communications Law, vol. 27, iss. 4, pp. 186-193, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Freedom of Expression and the EU’s Ban on Russia Today: A Dangerous Rubicon Crossed},
author = {Fahy, R. and Voorhoof, D.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4322452},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-12-22},
urldate = {2022-12-22},
journal = {Communications Law},
volume = {27},
issue = {4},
pages = {186-193},
abstract = {In RT France v Council, the General Court of the European Union found that the ban on RT France in the EU did not violate the right to freedom of expression and media freedom, under Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Notably, the General Court sought to apply principles from case law of the European Court of Human Rights and international human rights law. This article argues that there are serious questions to be raised over the General Court’s reasoning in RT France, and the judgment arguably represents a deeply problematic application of European and international free expression principles.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In RT France v Council, the General Court of the European Union found that the ban on RT France in the EU did not violate the right to freedom of expression and media freedom, under Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Notably, the General Court sought to apply principles from case law of the European Court of Human Rights and international human rights law. This article argues that there are serious questions to be raised over the General Court’s reasoning in RT France, and the judgment arguably represents a deeply problematic application of European and international free expression principles.
Quintais, J.; Appelman, N.; Fahy, R.
Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation Journal Article Forthcoming
In: German Law Journal, Forthcoming.
@article{nokey,
title = {Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},
author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4286147
https://osf.io/f2n7m/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-11-25},
journal = {German Law Journal},
abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platform's terms and conditions (T\&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T\&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T\&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T\&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T\&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T\&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards, and therefore allowing Article 14 to fulfil its revolutionary potential.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platform's terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards, and therefore allowing Article 14 to fulfil its revolutionary potential.
Voorhoof, D.; McGonagle, T.
Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights Book
2022, ISBN: 9789287184351, (IRIS Themes, vol. III, 7th edition, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).
@book{nokey,
title = {Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights},
author = {Voorhoof, D. and McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-7th-edition-april-2022-final-/1680a65f50},
isbn = { 9789287184351},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-08-26},
abstract = {This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first six editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020 and 2021) have proved hugely successful. The new seventh edition summarises over 360 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).},
note = {IRIS Themes, vol. III, 7th edition, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first six editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020 and 2021) have proved hugely successful. The new seventh edition summarises over 360 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).
Hins, A.
Opinie: Staatspropaganda en uitingsvrijheid Journal Article
In: Mediaforum, vol. 34, iss. 2, pp. 45, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Opinie: Staatspropaganda en uitingsvrijheid},
author = {Hins, A.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/opinie_mediaforum_2022_2/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-08-25},
journal = {Mediaforum},
volume = {34},
issue = {2},
pages = {45},
abstract = {Op 10 januari 2022 is de Europese Commissie een openbare raadpleging gestart inzake een nieuwe verordening op basis van art. 114 VWEU, genaamd ‘Europese wet inzake mediavrijheid. ’ Deze opinie bepleit om in de te toekomstige verordening vast te leggen dat publieke mediadiensten binnen de EU onafhankelijk moeten functioneren van de politieke macht. Het aanleggen van dezelfde criteria voor het doorgeven van programma’s die elders zijn uitgezonden is echter onevenredig.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Op 10 januari 2022 is de Europese Commissie een openbare raadpleging gestart inzake een nieuwe verordening op basis van art. 114 VWEU, genaamd ‘Europese wet inzake mediavrijheid. ’ Deze opinie bepleit om in de te toekomstige verordening vast te leggen dat publieke mediadiensten binnen de EU onafhankelijk moeten functioneren van de politieke macht. Het aanleggen van dezelfde criteria voor het doorgeven van programma’s die elders zijn uitgezonden is echter onevenredig.
McGonagle, T.
Another string to the bow of media freedom: An analysis of the Communiqués of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (2014 – 2022) Technical Report
2022, (Study commissioned by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE, Vienna).
@techreport{nokey,
title = {Another string to the bow of media freedom: An analysis of the Communiqu\'{e}s of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (2014 \textendash 2022)},
author = {McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/another_string_to_the_bow_of_media_freedom/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-07-21},
abstract = {Since 2014, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has issued 20 communiqu\'{e}s on a range of different themes relating to freedom of expression and information; media and internet freedom; and the safety and freedoms of journalists and other (media) actors. They were introduced as a new form of output that would have more depth and impact than regular
press releases or statements. This study provides an analysis of this corpus of communiqu\'{e}s. It examines their aims, instruments and formats used by the Representative to make political interventions and develop standpoints. The thematic analysis is grouped into the following rough categories: 1) enduring threats to freedom of the media and freedom of expression; 2) emerging threats to freedom of the media and freedom of expression; and 3) signature themes of the Office of the Representative. The signature themes are open journalism and safety of female journalists online \textendash the focuses of two recent flagship projects by the Office of the Representative. The picture that emerges from the analysis is one of complementary focuses and consistent approaches. Nevertheless, the conclusions offer a few modest recommendations to make future communiqu\'{e}s more distinctly recognisable as such and to further enhance the consistency across the growing corpus of communiqu\'{e}s.},
note = {Study commissioned by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE, Vienna},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Since 2014, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has issued 20 communiqués on a range of different themes relating to freedom of expression and information; media and internet freedom; and the safety and freedoms of journalists and other (media) actors. They were introduced as a new form of output that would have more depth and impact than regular
press releases or statements. This study provides an analysis of this corpus of communiqués. It examines their aims, instruments and formats used by the Representative to make political interventions and develop standpoints. The thematic analysis is grouped into the following rough categories: 1) enduring threats to freedom of the media and freedom of expression; 2) emerging threats to freedom of the media and freedom of expression; and 3) signature themes of the Office of the Representative. The signature themes are open journalism and safety of female journalists online – the focuses of two recent flagship projects by the Office of the Representative. The picture that emerges from the analysis is one of complementary focuses and consistent approaches. Nevertheless, the conclusions offer a few modest recommendations to make future communiqués more distinctly recognisable as such and to further enhance the consistency across the growing corpus of communiqués.
press releases or statements. This study provides an analysis of this corpus of communiqués. It examines their aims, instruments and formats used by the Representative to make political interventions and develop standpoints. The thematic analysis is grouped into the following rough categories: 1) enduring threats to freedom of the media and freedom of expression; 2) emerging threats to freedom of the media and freedom of expression; and 3) signature themes of the Office of the Representative. The signature themes are open journalism and safety of female journalists online – the focuses of two recent flagship projects by the Office of the Representative. The picture that emerges from the analysis is one of complementary focuses and consistent approaches. Nevertheless, the conclusions offer a few modest recommendations to make future communiqués more distinctly recognisable as such and to further enhance the consistency across the growing corpus of communiqués.
van Daalen, O.
In defense of offense: information security research under the right to science Journal Article
In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 46, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {In defense of offense: information security research under the right to science},
author = {van Daalen, O.},
doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105706},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-07-12},
journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},
volume = {46},
abstract = {Information security is something you do, not something you have. It's a recurring process of finding weaknesses and fixing them, only for the next weakness to be discovered, and fixed, and so on. Yet, European Union rules in this field are not built around this cycle of making and breaking: doing offensive information security research is not always legal, and doubts about its legality can have a chilling effect. At the same time, the results of such research are sometimes not used to allow others to take defensive measures, but instead are used to attack. In this article, I review whether states have an obligation under the right to science and the right to communications freedom to develop governance which addresses these two issues. I first discuss the characteristics of this cycle of making and breaking. I then discuss the rules in the European Union with regard to this cycle. Then I discuss how the right to science and the right to communications freedom under the European Convention for Human Rights , the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights apply to this domain. I then conclude that states must recognise a right to research information security vulnerabilities, but that this right comes with a duty of researchers to disclose their findings in a way which strengthens information security.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Information security is something you do, not something you have. It's a recurring process of finding weaknesses and fixing them, only for the next weakness to be discovered, and fixed, and so on. Yet, European Union rules in this field are not built around this cycle of making and breaking: doing offensive information security research is not always legal, and doubts about its legality can have a chilling effect. At the same time, the results of such research are sometimes not used to allow others to take defensive measures, but instead are used to attack. In this article, I review whether states have an obligation under the right to science and the right to communications freedom to develop governance which addresses these two issues. I first discuss the characteristics of this cycle of making and breaking. I then discuss the rules in the European Union with regard to this cycle. Then I discuss how the right to science and the right to communications freedom under the European Convention for Human Rights , the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights apply to this domain. I then conclude that states must recognise a right to research information security vulnerabilities, but that this right comes with a duty of researchers to disclose their findings in a way which strengthens information security.
Leerssen, P.
Annotatie bij Rb Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Kamerlid / LinkedIn Ierland & LinkedIn Nederland) Journal Article
In: Computerrecht, iss. 3, no. 97, pp. 228-230, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Kamerlid / LinkedIn Ierland \& LinkedIn Nederland)},
author = {Leerssen, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_computerrecht_2022_97/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-06-16},
journal = {Computerrecht},
number = {97},
issue = {3},
pages = {228-230},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Quintais, J.
Article 17 survives, but freedom of expression safeguards are key: C-401/19 – Poland v Parliament and Council Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Article 17 survives, but freedom of expression safeguards are key: C-401/19 \textendash Poland v Parliament and Council},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/26/article-17-survives-but-freedom-of-expression-safeguards-are-key-c-401-19-poland-v-parliament-and-council/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-02},
urldate = {2022-05-02},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Fahy, R.; Dobber, T.; Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.; Shires, J.
Microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors: An interdisciplinary exploration Journal Article
In: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, pp. 856-877, 2022, (MJ, vol. 28, nr. 6, 2021).
@article{nokey,
title = {Microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors: An interdisciplinary exploration},
author = {Fahy, R. and Dobber, T. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Shires, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/MaastrichtJournalofEuropeanandComparativeLaw_2021_6.pdf},
doi = {10.1177/1023263X211042471},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-25},
urldate = {2021-12-31},
journal = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law},
pages = {856-877},
abstract = {This article discusses a problem that has received scant attention in literature: microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors. Microtargeting involves collecting information about people, and using that information to show them targeted political advertisements. Such microtargeting enables advertisers to target ads to specific groups of people, for instance people who visit certain websites, forums, or Facebook groups. This article focuses on one type of microtargeting: microtargeting by foreign actors. For example, Russia has targeted certain groups in the US with ads, aiming to sow discord. Foreign actors could also try to influence European elections, for instance by advertising in favour of a certain political party. Foreign propaganda possibilities existed before microtargeting. This article explores two questions. In what ways, if any, is microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors different from other foreign propaganda? What could lawmakers in Europe do to mitigate the risks of microtargeted propaganda?},
note = {MJ, vol. 28, nr. 6, 2021},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article discusses a problem that has received scant attention in literature: microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors. Microtargeting involves collecting information about people, and using that information to show them targeted political advertisements. Such microtargeting enables advertisers to target ads to specific groups of people, for instance people who visit certain websites, forums, or Facebook groups. This article focuses on one type of microtargeting: microtargeting by foreign actors. For example, Russia has targeted certain groups in the US with ads, aiming to sow discord. Foreign actors could also try to influence European elections, for instance by advertising in favour of a certain political party. Foreign propaganda possibilities existed before microtargeting. This article explores two questions. In what ways, if any, is microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors different from other foreign propaganda? What could lawmakers in Europe do to mitigate the risks of microtargeted propaganda?
Hins, A.
Annotatie bij Rb. Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Van Haga / LinkedIn) Journal Article
In: Mediaforum, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 206-208, 2021.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Van Haga / LinkedIn)},
author = {Hins, A.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Mf_2021_6.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-12-02},
journal = {Mediaforum},
volume = {33},
number = {6},
pages = {206-208},
abstract = {Het Tweede Kamerlid Van Haga heeft op zijn LinkedIn profielpagina berichten geplaatst waarin hij de gevaren van het coronavirus in twijfel trok. Het bedrijf LinkedIn heeft eerst een paar van deze berichten verwijderd en daarna het account van Van Haga helemaal be\"{e}indigd. In het kort geding ging het onder meer om de vraag in hoeverre Van Haga beschermd wordt door de vrijheid van meningsuiting.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Het Tweede Kamerlid Van Haga heeft op zijn LinkedIn profielpagina berichten geplaatst waarin hij de gevaren van het coronavirus in twijfel trok. Het bedrijf LinkedIn heeft eerst een paar van deze berichten verwijderd en daarna het account van Van Haga helemaal beëindigd. In het kort geding ging het onder meer om de vraag in hoeverre Van Haga beschermd wordt door de vrijheid van meningsuiting.
Fahy, R.; Helberger, N.; Appelman, N.
The perils of legally defining disinformation Journal Article
In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 4, 2021.
@article{nokey,
title = {The perils of legally defining disinformation},
author = {Fahy, R. and Helberger, N. and Appelman, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/InternetPolicyReview_2021.pdf},
doi = {10.14763/2021.4.1584},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-12},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
volume = {10},
number = {4},
abstract = {EU policy considers disinformation to be harmful content, rather than illegal content. However, EU member states have recently been making disinformation illegal. This article discusses the definitions that form the basis of EU disinformation policy, and analyses national legislation in EU member states applicable to the definitions of disinformation, in light of freedom of expression and the proposed Digital Services Act. The article discusses the perils of defining disinformation in EU legislation, and including provisions on online platforms being required to remove illegal content, which may end up being applicable to overbroad national laws criminalising false news and false information.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
EU policy considers disinformation to be harmful content, rather than illegal content. However, EU member states have recently been making disinformation illegal. This article discusses the definitions that form the basis of EU disinformation policy, and analyses national legislation in EU member states applicable to the definitions of disinformation, in light of freedom of expression and the proposed Digital Services Act. The article discusses the perils of defining disinformation in EU legislation, and including provisions on online platforms being required to remove illegal content, which may end up being applicable to overbroad national laws criminalising false news and false information.
van Hoboken, J.; Fahy, R.
Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy Journal Article
In: UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9-36, 2021.
@article{vanHoboken2021,
title = {Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Fahy, R.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Regulating-Disinformation-in-Europe.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-01},
journal = {UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law},
volume = {6},
number = {1},
pages = {9-36},
abstract = {This Article examines the ongoing dynamics in the regulation of disinformation in Europe, focusing on the intersection between the right to
freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At
the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning datadriven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This Article examines the ongoing dynamics in the regulation of disinformation in Europe, focusing on the intersection between the right to
freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At
the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning datadriven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies.
freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At
the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning datadriven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies.
Voorhoof, D.; McGonagle, T.
Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights Journal Article
In: 2021, ISBN: 9789287184351, (IRIS Themes, vol. III, 6th edition, April 2021).
@article{Voorhoof2021,
title = {Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights},
author = {Voorhoof, D. and McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-2020-edition-en-28-april-2021-/1680a24eee},
isbn = {9789287184351},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-06},
abstract = {This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020) have proved hugely successful. The new sixth edition summarises over 339 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). },
note = {IRIS Themes, vol. III, 6th edition, April 2021},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020) have proved hugely successful. The new sixth edition summarises over 339 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 1 oktober 2019 (nr. 17/01305) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, no. 5/6, pp. 550-551, 2021.
@article{Dommering2021d,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 1 oktober 2019 (nr. 17/01305)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_29.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-12},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
volume = {2021},
number = {5/6},
pages = {550-551},
abstract = {Schending geheimhoudingsplicht lid Antilliaanse parlement.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Schending geheimhoudingsplicht lid Antilliaanse parlement.
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij EHRM 8 oktober 2019 (Szurovecz / Hongarije) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, no. 4, pp. 230-231, 2021.
@article{Dommering2021b,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 8 oktober 2019 (Szurovecz / Hongarije)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_13.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-11},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
volume = {2021},
number = {4},
pages = {230-231},
abstract = {Deze zaak gaat over de vrijheid van nieuwsgaring. Een journalist kreeg geen toegang tot vreemdelingencentra in Hongarije. Het EHRM achtte dat in de gegeven omstandigheden in strijd met artikel 10 EVRM. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Deze zaak gaat over de vrijheid van nieuwsgaring. Een journalist kreeg geen toegang tot vreemdelingencentra in Hongarije. Het EHRM achtte dat in de gegeven omstandigheden in strijd met artikel 10 EVRM.
Quintais, J.; Jutte, B.J.
The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights Journal Article
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 213-225, 2021.
@article{QuintaisJutte2021,
title = {The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights},
author = {Quintais, J. and Jutte, B.J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3775599},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab040},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-18},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
volume = {16},
number = {3},
pages = {213-225},
abstract = {On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.
This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.
This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E\&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6). },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.
This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.
This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6).
Senftleben, M.; Angelopoulos, C.
2020, (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
@techreport{Senftleben2020e,
title = {The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-29},
abstract = {EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content \textendash no matter how specifically it is defined \textendash must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.
This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').
With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied \textendash in the light of applicable CJEU case law \textendash as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.},
note = {Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law \& Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content – no matter how specifically it is defined – must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.
This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').
With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied – in the light of applicable CJEU case law – as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.
Senftleben, M.
Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability Journal Article
In: Florida International University Law Review, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 299-328, 2020.
@article{Senftleben2020,
title = {Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3565175
https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol14/iss2/11/},
doi = {10.25148/lawrev.14.2.11},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-20},
journal = {Florida International University Law Review},
volume = {14},
number = {2},
pages = {299-328},
abstract = {Algorithmic copyright enforcement \textendash the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet \textendash has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Algorithmic copyright enforcement – the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet – has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.
Hins, A.
In: Mediaforum, no. 6, pp. 226-227, 2020.
@article{nokey,
title = {Private censuur door sociale media, Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 9 september 2020 (X / Google Ireland \& Google Netherlands) en Rb Amsterdam 13 oktober 2020 (Stichting Smart Exit, Stichting Viruswaarheid en Y / Facebook Ireland \& Facebook Netherlands)},
author = {Hins, A.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_MF_2020_6.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-06-01},
journal = {Mediaforum},
number = {6},
pages = {226-227},
abstract = {In civiele procedures tegen respectievelijk Google (YouTube) en Facebook wordt gevorderd dat de platformexploitanten informatie terugplaatsen die door hen was verwijderd op grond van hun beleid tegen desinformatie. De annotatie bespreekt de horizontale werking van het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting en maakt een vergelijking met het recht in de U.S.A.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In civiele procedures tegen respectievelijk Google (YouTube) en Facebook wordt gevorderd dat de platformexploitanten informatie terugplaatsen die door hen was verwijderd op grond van hun beleid tegen desinformatie. De annotatie bespreekt de horizontale werking van het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting en maakt een vergelijking met het recht in de U.S.A.
van Hoboken, J.; Appelman, N.; Fahy, R.; Leerssen, P.; McGonagle, T.; van Eijk, N.; Helberger, N.
Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties Technical Report
2020, (Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019).
@techreport{vanHoboken2020b,
title = {Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-14},
abstract = {Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden.
Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders.
Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. },
note = {Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden.
Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders.
Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms.
Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders.
Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms.
van Hoboken, J.; Appelman, N.; Fahy, R.; Leerssen, P.; McGonagle, T.; van Eijk, N.; Helberger, N.
The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising Technical Report
2020, (A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019).
@techreport{vanHoboken2020c,
title = {The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-14},
abstract = {The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada).
The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities.
Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.},
note = {A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada).
The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities.
Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.
The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities.
Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.
Voorhoof, D.; McGonagle, T.
Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights Book
2020, (IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).
@book{Voorhoof2020,
title = {Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights},
author = {Voorhoof, D. and McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-ed-2020-en-2/16809e45e7},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-08},
abstract = {This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017) have proved hugely successful. The new fifth edition summarises over 315 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.},
note = {IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017) have proved hugely successful. The new fifth edition summarises over 315 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.
Metzger, A.; Senftleben, M.; Derclaye E.; Dreier, T.; Geiger, C.; Griffiths, J.; Hilty, R.; Hugenholtz, P.; Riis, T.; Rognstad, O.A.; Strowel, A.M.; Synodinou, T.; Xalabarder, R.
In: 2020.
@article{Metzger2020,
title = {Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law \textendash Comment of the European Copyright Society},
author = {Metzger, A. and Senftleben, M. and Derclaye E. and Dreier, T. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Hilty, R. and Hugenholtz, P. and Riis, T. and Rognstad, O.A. and Strowel, A.M. and Synodinou, T. and Xalabarder, R.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-07},
abstract = {The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex \textendash and most controversial \textendash provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law \textendash an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.
McGonagle, T.
Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM Journal Article
In: Mediaforum, no. 1, pp. 2-6, 2020.
@article{McGonagle2020d,
title = {Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM},
author = {McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2020_1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-13},
journal = {Mediaforum},
number = {1},
pages = {2-6},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Korthals Altes, W.
Rechter en uitingsvrijheid – een actueel thema Journal Article
In: Mediaforum, no. 1, pp. 1, 2020, (Opinie).
@article{Altes2020,
title = {Rechter en uitingsvrijheid \textendash een actueel thema},
author = {Korthals Altes, W.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Opinie_Mediaforum_2020_1-1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-13},
journal = {Mediaforum},
number = {1},
pages = {1},
note = {Opinie},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Helberger, N.; Eskens, S.; Drunen, M. van; Bastian, M.; Möller, J.
Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression Technical Report
2020, (Council of Europe, September 2019).
@techreport{Helberger2020,
title = {Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression},
author = {Helberger, N. and Eskens, S. and Drunen, M. van and Bastian, M. and M\"{o}ller, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AI-and-Freedom-of-Expression.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-05},
publisher = {Council of Europe, September 2019},
abstract = {Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020."},
note = {Council of Europe, September 2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020."
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019 Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 10, pp. 1368-1369, 2020.
@article{Dommering2020d,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_20120_72.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-03},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {10},
pages = {1368-1369},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
McGonagle, T.
The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing Book Chapter
In: Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 227-253, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055.
@inbook{McGonagle2020b,
title = {The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing},
author = {McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/CoE_and_internet_intermediaries.pdf
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/human-rights-age-platforms},
isbn = {9780262039055},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-07},
booktitle = {Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. J\orgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019.},
pages = {227-253},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
McGonagle, T.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 oktober 2019 (Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek) Journal Article
In: European Human Rights Cases Updates, 2020.
@article{McGonagle2020c,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 oktober 2019 (Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek)},
author = {McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/commentaar/209146},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-04},
journal = {European Human Rights Cases Updates},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
McGonagle, T.
Szurovecz t. Hongarije (EHRM, nr. 15428/16) - Court underscores importance of direct news-gathering by journalists Journal Article
In: European Human Rights Cases, 2020.
@article{McGonagle2020,
title = {Szurovecz t. Hongarije (EHRM, nr. 15428/16) - Court underscores importance of direct news-gathering by journalists},
author = {McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/commentaar/207250
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_EHRC_2020_15428_16.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-31},
journal = {European Human Rights Cases},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Fahy, R.; Voorhoof, D.
Journalist and editor’s conviction for incitement to religious hatred violated Article 10 Online
2020.
@online{Fahy2020,
title = {Journalist and editor’s conviction for incitement to religious hatred violated Article 10},
author = {Fahy, R. and Voorhoof, D.},
url = {http://www.mediareport.nl/persrecht/21012020/journalist-and-editors-conviction-for-incitement-to-religious-hatred-violated-article-10/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-23},
journal = {Media Report},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Dobber, T.; Fahy, R.; Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.
The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe Journal Article
In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 8, no. 4, 2020.
@article{Dobber2020,
title = {The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe},
author = {Dobber, T. and Fahy, R. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.},
url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulation-online-political-micro-targeting-europe},
doi = {10.14763/2019.4.1440},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-16},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
volume = {8},
number = {4},
abstract = {In this paper, we examine how online political micro-targeting is regulated in Europe. While there are no specific rules on such micro-targeting, there are general rules that apply. We focus on three fields of law: data protection law, freedom of expression, and sector-specific rules for political advertising; for the latter we examine four countries. We argue that the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are necessary, but not sufficient. We show that political advertising, including online political micro-targeting, is protected by the right to freedom of expression. That right is not absolute, however. From a European human rights perspective, it is possible for lawmakers to limit the possibilities for political advertising. Indeed, some countries ban TV advertising for political parties during elections.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In this paper, we examine how online political micro-targeting is regulated in Europe. While there are no specific rules on such micro-targeting, there are general rules that apply. We focus on three fields of law: data protection law, freedom of expression, and sector-specific rules for political advertising; for the latter we examine four countries. We argue that the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are necessary, but not sufficient. We show that political advertising, including online political micro-targeting, is protected by the right to freedom of expression. That right is not absolute, however. From a European human rights perspective, it is possible for lawmakers to limit the possibilities for political advertising. Indeed, some countries ban TV advertising for political parties during elections.
Voorhoof, D.; Fahy, R.
Denying journalist access to asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated Article 10 ECHR Journal Article
In: Strasbourg Observers, 2019.
@article{Voorhoof2019,
title = {Denying journalist access to asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated Article 10 ECHR},
author = {Voorhoof, D. and Fahy, R.},
url = {https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/11/04/denying-journalist-access-to-asylum-seeker-reception-centre-in-hungary-violated-article-10-echr/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-11-15},
journal = {Strasbourg Observers},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Fahy, R.; Voorhoof, D.
ECtHR engages in dangerous "triple pirouette" to find criminal prosecution for media coverage of PKK statements did not violate Article 10 Journal Article
In: Strasbourg Observers, 2019.
@article{Fahy2019c,
title = {ECtHR engages in dangerous "triple pirouette" to find criminal prosecution for media coverage of PKK statements did not violate Article 10},
author = {Fahy, R. and Voorhoof, D.},
url = {https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/10/14/ecthr-engages-in-dangerous-triple-pirouette-to-find-criminal-prosecution-for-media-coverage-of-pkk-statements-did-not-violate-article-10/#more-4435},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-14},
journal = {Strasbourg Observers},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 348) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 40, pp. 5658-5659, 2019.
@article{Dommering2019e,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 348)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2019_348.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-08},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {40},
pages = {5658-5659},
abstract = {Ophangen van posters waarin bouwbedrijf in verband wordt gebracht met deportaties door gesloten gezinsvoorziening te bouwen in Detentiecentrum Zeist. Oordeel dat veroordeling ter zake smaadschrift geen strijd oplevert met vrijheid van meningsuiting ontoereikend gemotiveerd.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Ophangen van posters waarin bouwbedrijf in verband wordt gebracht met deportaties door gesloten gezinsvoorziening te bouwen in Detentiecentrum Zeist. Oordeel dat veroordeling ter zake smaadschrift geen strijd oplevert met vrijheid van meningsuiting ontoereikend gemotiveerd.
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 349) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 40, pp. 5677, 2019.
@article{Dommering2019f,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 349)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2019_349.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-08},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {40},
pages = {5677},
abstract = {Het hof kon oordelen dat met de door verdachte opgeplakte poster werd opgeruid tot 'gewelddadig optreden tegen het openbaar gezag' en dat veroordeling niet in strijd is met vrijheid van meningsuiting.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Het hof kon oordelen dat met de door verdachte opgeplakte poster werd opgeruid tot 'gewelddadig optreden tegen het openbaar gezag' en dat veroordeling niet in strijd is met vrijheid van meningsuiting.
Jütte, B.J.; Quintais, J.
Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019.
@article{J\"{u}tte2019b,
title = {Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019},
author = {J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/09/24/conference-on-freedom-of-expression-and-copyright-luxembourg-7-november-2019/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-09-26},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Hins, A.
Book review of Aleksandra Kuczerawy, Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression in the EU Journal Article
In: Common Market Law Review, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1154-1155, 2019.
@article{Hins2019b,
title = {Book review of Aleksandra Kuczerawy, Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression in the EU},
author = {Hins, A.},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-08-22},
journal = {Common Market Law Review},
volume = {56},
number = {4},
pages = {1154-1155},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Kostić, B.; McGonagle, T.
How Social are New and Social Media for National Minorities? Perspectives from the FCNM Journal Article
In: European Yearbook of Minority Issues, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-33, 2019.
@article{Kosti\'{c}2019,
title = {How Social are New and Social Media for National Minorities? Perspectives from the FCNM},
author = {Kosti\'{c}, B. and McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://brill.com/abstract/journals/ymio/16/1/article-p1_2.xml},
doi = {10.1163/22116117_01601002},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-07-04},
journal = {European Yearbook of Minority Issues},
volume = {16},
number = {1},
pages = {3-33},
abstract = {Understanding the transformation of digital communication gives important insights into how new media, including social media, affect the ability of persons belonging to national minorities to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and participation in society. Thus, the new media ecosystem calls for greater attention for minority-related issues. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) has already observed that the media ecosystem is increasingly used for the expression of intolerance and hostility towards minorities, but that it also provides them with valuable expressive opportunities. This article starts with an analysis of how the advent and growing dominance of social media are causing farreaching changes in how we communicate in the new media ecosystem. The potential and drawbacks of new and social media for national minorities is the next focus. The article then analyses the ACFC’s monitoring work regarding new and social media. The article’s conclusions are supplemented by a set of recommendations that may guide the ACFC’s future monitoring work on relevant issues.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Understanding the transformation of digital communication gives important insights into how new media, including social media, affect the ability of persons belonging to national minorities to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and participation in society. Thus, the new media ecosystem calls for greater attention for minority-related issues. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) has already observed that the media ecosystem is increasingly used for the expression of intolerance and hostility towards minorities, but that it also provides them with valuable expressive opportunities. This article starts with an analysis of how the advent and growing dominance of social media are causing farreaching changes in how we communicate in the new media ecosystem. The potential and drawbacks of new and social media for national minorities is the next focus. The article then analyses the ACFC’s monitoring work regarding new and social media. The article’s conclusions are supplemented by a set of recommendations that may guide the ACFC’s future monitoring work on relevant issues.
Fahy, R.; Voorhoof, D.
Article 10 ECHR and Expressive Conduct Journal Article
In: Communications Law, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 62-73, 2019, (Pre-print).
@article{Fahy2019bb,
title = {Article 10 ECHR and Expressive Conduct},
author = {Fahy, R. and Voorhoof, D.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Communications_Law_2019.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-06-25},
journal = {Communications Law},
volume = {24},
number = {2},
pages = {62-73},
abstract = {The European Court of Human Rights has recently delivered a series of judgments finding violations of the right to freedom of expression over convictions for engaging in expressive conduct. The purpose of this article is to discuss the European Court's recent case law on expressive conduct under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular to assess in what circumstances, if any, domestic courts may impose prison sentences, even if suspended, on individuals engaging in peaceful, but provocative and offensive expression.},
note = {Pre-print},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The European Court of Human Rights has recently delivered a series of judgments finding violations of the right to freedom of expression over convictions for engaging in expressive conduct. The purpose of this article is to discuss the European Court's recent case law on expressive conduct under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular to assess in what circumstances, if any, domestic courts may impose prison sentences, even if suspended, on individuals engaging in peaceful, but provocative and offensive expression.