Blog Posts: Filtered

The CJEU’s new filtering case, the Terrorist Content Regulation, and the future of filtering mandates in the EU

This blog post will briefly discuss the ruling’s relevance for future EU legislation, and in particular for the Terrorist Content Regulation. TL;DR: Glawischnig-Piesczek does not discuss when a filtering order might be considered proportionate or consistent with fundamental rights under the EU Charter. It only addresses the eCommerce Directive, holding that a monitoring injunction is not “general” — and thus is not prohibited under the Directive — when it “does not require the host provider to carry out an independent assessment” of filtered content. This interpretation of the eCommerce Directive opens the door for lawmakers to require “specific” machine-based filtering. But it seemingly leaves courts unable to require platforms to bring human judgment to bear by having employees review and correct filters’ decisions. That puts the eCommerce Directive in tension with both fundamental rights and EU lawmakers’ stated goals in the Terrorist Content Regulation. Read more about The CJEU’s new filtering case, the Terrorist Content Regulation, and the future of filtering mandates in the EU

Filtering Facebook: Introducing Dolphins in the Net, a New Stanford CIS White Paper - OR - Why Internet Users and EU Policymakers Should Worry about the Advocate General’s Opinion in Glawischnig-Piesczek

Filtering Facebook: Introducing Dolphins in the Net, a New Stanford CIS White Paper
OR
Why Internet Users and EU Policymakers Should Worry about the Advocate General’s Opinion in Glawischnig-Piesczek

White Paper: Dolphins in the Net: Internet Content Filters and the Advocate General’s Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Opinion Read more about Filtering Facebook: Introducing Dolphins in the Net, a New Stanford CIS White Paper - OR - Why Internet Users and EU Policymakers Should Worry about the Advocate General’s Opinion in Glawischnig-Piesczek

What Online Content Are We Regulating? Illegal Speech, Offensive Speech, and Platform Value

This discussion, excerpted from my Who Do You Sue article, very briefly reviews the implications of what I call “must-carry” arguments – claims that operators of major Internet platforms should be held to the same First Amendment standards as the government, and prevented from using their Terms of Service or Community Guidelines to prohibit lawful speech. Read more about What Online Content Are We Regulating? Illegal Speech, Offensive Speech, and Platform Value

Platform Content Regulation – Some Models and Their Problems

Lawmakers today are increasingly focused on their options for regulating the content we see on online platforms. I described several ambitious regulatory models for doing that in my recent paper, Who Do You Sue? State and Platform Hybrid Power Over Online Speech. This blog post excerpts that discussion, and sketches out potential legal regimes to address major platforms’ function as de facto gatekeepers of online speech and information. Read more about Platform Content Regulation – Some Models and Their Problems

The EU's Terrorist Content Regulation: Expanding the Rule of Platform Terms of Service and Exporting Expression Restrictions from the EU's Most Conservative Member States

The EU’s proposed Terrorist Content Regulation gives national authorities sweeping new powers over comments, videos, and other content that people share using Internet platforms. Among other things, authorities – who may be police, not courts – can require platforms of all sizes to take content down within one hour. The Regulation also requires even small platforms to build upload filters and attempt to proactively weed out prohibited material. Read more about The EU's Terrorist Content Regulation: Expanding the Rule of Platform Terms of Service and Exporting Expression Restrictions from the EU's Most Conservative Member States

Online Speech Rights and the Supreme Court's Pending Halleck Case

I have a new article coming out, called Who Do You Sue? State and Platform Hybrid Power over Online Speech. It is about free expression rights on platforms like Facebook or Twitter, which the Supreme Court has called “the modern public square.” One section is about speakers suing platforms. It looks at cases – over thirty so far – where users argue that companies like Facebook or Twitter have violated their free expression rights by taking down legal speech that is prohibited under the platforms’ Community Guidelines. Read more about Online Speech Rights and the Supreme Court's Pending Halleck Case

Pages