‘Must-carry’, special treatment and freedom of expression on online platforms: a European story

‘Must-carry’, special treatment and freedom of expression on online platforms: a European story external link

Kuczerawy, A. & Quintais, J.

European Law Open, pp: 1-34, 2025

Abstract

This paper examines the evolution and implications of ‘must-carry’ obligations in the regulation of online platforms, with a focus on Europe. These obligations, which restrict platforms’ discretion to remove or deprioritise certain content, represent a novel regulatory response to the growing power of platforms in shaping public discourse. The analysis traces developments at EU and national levels. At the EU level, it considers rejected must-carry proposals during the drafting of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the adoption of Article 18 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which grants privileges to recognised media service providers. At the national level, it examines Germany’s prohibition on content discrimination, the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Poland’s abandoned legislative proposal on freedom of expression online. Case law from courts in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Poland further illustrates the emergence of judicially crafted duties resembling must-carry obligations. The paper argues that these measures are best understood as special treatment rules that privilege particular speakers, notably media organisations and politicians, by limiting platform autonomy in content moderation. While intended to safeguard pluralism and access to trustworthy information, such rules risk creating a two-tier system of expression in which established voices receive disproportionate protection while ordinary users remain vulnerable. Protections for politicians raise concerns about shielding powerful actors from justified moderation, whereas media privileges, though more defensible, remain limited in scope and potentially counterproductive, especially when exploited by outlets disseminating disinformation. The conclusion is that compelled inclusion and preferential treatment are unlikely to offer sustainable solutions to the structural imbalances between platforms, media providers, and politicians. More durable approaches should focus on strengthening journalism through financial and structural support, fostering innovation and local media, and prioritising user empowerment measures. Only systemic safeguards of this kind can effectively promote pluralism, accountability, and resilience in the digital public sphere.

Links

Digital Services Act (DSA), European Media Freedom Act, Freedom of expression, must carry, platform regulation

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Kuczerawy, A.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-12-15
T1  - ‘Must-carry’, special treatment and freedom of expression on online platforms: a European story
JO  - European Law Open
SP  - 1-34
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2025.10046
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2025.10046
AB  - This paper examines the evolution and implications of ‘must-carry’ obligations in the regulation of online platforms, with a focus on Europe. These obligations, which restrict platforms’ discretion to remove or deprioritise certain content, represent a novel regulatory response to the growing power of platforms in shaping public discourse. The analysis traces developments at EU and national levels. At the EU level, it considers rejected must-carry proposals during the drafting of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the adoption of Article 18 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which grants privileges to recognised media service providers. At the national level, it examines Germany’s prohibition on content discrimination, the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Poland’s abandoned legislative proposal on freedom of expression online. Case law from courts in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Poland further illustrates the emergence of judicially crafted duties resembling must-carry obligations. The paper argues that these measures are best understood as special treatment rules that privilege particular speakers, notably media organisations and politicians, by limiting platform autonomy in content moderation. While intended to safeguard pluralism and access to trustworthy information, such rules risk creating a two-tier system of expression in which established voices receive disproportionate protection while ordinary users remain vulnerable. Protections for politicians raise concerns about shielding powerful actors from justified moderation, whereas media privileges, though more defensible, remain limited in scope and potentially counterproductive, especially when exploited by outlets disseminating disinformation. The conclusion is that compelled inclusion and preferential treatment are unlikely to offer sustainable solutions to the structural imbalances between platforms, media providers, and politicians. More durable approaches should focus on strengthening journalism through financial and structural support, fostering innovation and local media, and prioritising user empowerment measures. Only systemic safeguards of this kind can effectively promote pluralism, accountability, and resilience in the digital public sphere.
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - European Media Freedom Act
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - must carry
K1  - platform regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {‘Must-carry’, special treatment and freedom of expression on online platforms: a European story},
	author = {Kuczerawy, A. and Quintais, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2025.10046},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-12-15},
	journal = {European Law Open},
	pages = {1-34},
	abstract = {This paper examines the evolution and implications of ‘must-carry’ obligations in the regulation of online platforms, with a focus on Europe. These obligations, which restrict platforms’ discretion to remove or deprioritise certain content, represent a novel regulatory response to the growing power of platforms in shaping public discourse. The analysis traces developments at EU and national levels. At the EU level, it considers rejected must-carry proposals during the drafting of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the adoption of Article 18 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which grants privileges to recognised media service providers. At the national level, it examines Germany’s prohibition on content discrimination, the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Poland’s abandoned legislative proposal on freedom of expression online. Case law from courts in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Poland further illustrates the emergence of judicially crafted duties resembling must-carry obligations. The paper argues that these measures are best understood as special treatment rules that privilege particular speakers, notably media organisations and politicians, by limiting platform autonomy in content moderation. While intended to safeguard pluralism and access to trustworthy information, such rules risk creating a two-tier system of expression in which established voices receive disproportionate protection while ordinary users remain vulnerable. Protections for politicians raise concerns about shielding powerful actors from justified moderation, whereas media privileges, though more defensible, remain limited in scope and potentially counterproductive, especially when exploited by outlets disseminating disinformation. The conclusion is that compelled inclusion and preferential treatment are unlikely to offer sustainable solutions to the structural imbalances between platforms, media providers, and politicians. More durable approaches should focus on strengthening journalism through financial and structural support, fostering innovation and local media, and prioritising user empowerment measures. Only systemic safeguards of this kind can effectively promote pluralism, accountability, and resilience in the digital public sphere.},
	keywords = {Digital Services Act (DSA), European Media Freedom Act, Freedom of expression, must carry, platform regulation},
}

Save .bib

Trademark Law and Political Expression: The Case of IKEA v. Vlaams Belang and Beyond external link

Izyumenko, E.

2025

Abstract

This article offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolving interface between trademark law and freedom of political expression in Europe, using the CJEU case IKEA v. Vlaams Belang as a focal but not exhaustive case study. It argues that the dispute exemplifies a much broader and increasingly urgent structural question: how EU trademark law – especially in its protection of reputed marks – can be reconciled with the constitutional commitments to political speech, artistic creativity, and democratic participation embedded in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11 of the EU Charter. Against a backdrop of the expanding preliminary infringement criteria of “use in the course of trade” and “use in relation to goods or services”, as well as the uniquely far-reaching Benelux “super anti-dilution” regime, the article demonstrates that “due cause” has become the principal doctrinal locus for internalising freedom-of-expression concerns within trademark law. Drawing on Strasbourg jurisprudence, it develops a holistic framework for a free-speech-conforming interpretation of “due cause”, analysing both the criteria suggested by the Belgian referring court and additional factors central to the European Court of Human Rights’ proportionality review, including commerciality, the value of political speech and artistic expression, the reputation of the mark and the power of corporate symbols, availability of alternatives, tolerance for offensive expression, the limits imposed by hate speech, and the compelled speech doctrine. The article concludes that failing to interpret “due cause” in a speech-sensitive way would risk enabling trademark rights to override core democratic freedoms.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5783265

Freedom of expression, Political speech, Trademark law

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Izyumenko, E.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-11-25
T1  - Trademark Law and Political Expression: The Case of IKEA v. Vlaams Belang and Beyond
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5783265
AB  - This article offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolving interface between trademark law and freedom of political expression in Europe, using the CJEU case IKEA v. Vlaams Belang as a focal but not exhaustive case study. It argues that the dispute exemplifies a much broader and increasingly urgent structural question: how EU trademark law – especially in its protection of reputed marks – can be reconciled with the constitutional commitments to political speech, artistic creativity, and democratic participation embedded in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11 of the EU Charter. Against a backdrop of the expanding preliminary infringement criteria of “use in the course of trade” and “use in relation to goods or services”, as well as the uniquely far-reaching Benelux “super anti-dilution” regime, the article demonstrates that “due cause” has become the principal doctrinal locus for internalising freedom-of-expression concerns within trademark law. Drawing on Strasbourg jurisprudence, it develops a holistic framework for a free-speech-conforming interpretation of “due cause”, analysing both the criteria suggested by the Belgian referring court and additional factors central to the European Court of Human Rights’ proportionality review, including commerciality, the value of political speech and artistic expression, the reputation of the mark and the power of corporate symbols, availability of alternatives, tolerance for offensive expression, the limits imposed by hate speech, and the compelled speech doctrine. The article concludes that failing to interpret “due cause” in a speech-sensitive way would risk enabling trademark rights to override core democratic freedoms.
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Political speech
K1  - Trademark law
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Trademark Law and Political Expression: The Case of IKEA v. Vlaams Belang and Beyond},
	author = {Izyumenko, E.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-11-25},
	abstract = {This article offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolving interface between trademark law and freedom of political expression in Europe, using the CJEU case IKEA v. Vlaams Belang as a focal but not exhaustive case study. It argues that the dispute exemplifies a much broader and increasingly urgent structural question: how EU trademark law – especially in its protection of reputed marks – can be reconciled with the constitutional commitments to political speech, artistic creativity, and democratic participation embedded in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11 of the EU Charter. Against a backdrop of the expanding preliminary infringement criteria of “use in the course of trade” and “use in relation to goods or services”, as well as the uniquely far-reaching Benelux “super anti-dilution” regime, the article demonstrates that “due cause” has become the principal doctrinal locus for internalising freedom-of-expression concerns within trademark law. Drawing on Strasbourg jurisprudence, it develops a holistic framework for a free-speech-conforming interpretation of “due cause”, analysing both the criteria suggested by the Belgian referring court and additional factors central to the European Court of Human Rights’ proportionality review, including commerciality, the value of political speech and artistic expression, the reputation of the mark and the power of corporate symbols, availability of alternatives, tolerance for offensive expression, the limits imposed by hate speech, and the compelled speech doctrine. The article concludes that failing to interpret “due cause” in a speech-sensitive way would risk enabling trademark rights to override core democratic freedoms.},
	keywords = {Freedom of expression, Political speech, Trademark law},
}

Save .bib

Freedom of Political Expression and the Limits of Trademark Power: IKEA v. Vlaams Belang external link

Izyumenko, E.

Human Rights Here, 2025

Links

https://www.humanrightshere.com/post/freedom-of-political-expression-and-the-limits-of-trademark-power-ikea-v-vlaams-belang

Freedom of expression, Trademark law

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Freedom of Political Expression as “Due Cause”: The Pending IKEA v. Vlaams Belang Case Before the CJEU external link

Izyumenko, E.

Kluwer Trademark Blog, 2025

Abstract

The pending IKEA v. Vlaams Belang case before the CJEU offers a key test of how freedom of expression (FoE) interacts with EU trademark law. IKEA sued the Belgian party Vlaams Belang for parodying its name, logo, and colours in a campaign titled “IKEA Plan” (Immigratie Kan Echt Anders—“Immigration Really Can Be Different”). The Belgian Enterprise Court asked the CJEU whether such political parody can constitute “due cause” under EU trademark rules and, if so, which factors should guide that assessment. The hearing took place in June 2025, with the Advocate General’s Opinion expected on 13 November 2025. This post considers the FoE factors identified by the Belgian court—rooted in ECtHR case-law—and their role in the proportionality analysis.

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/trademark-blog/freedom-of-political-expression-as-due-cause-the-pending-ikea-v-vlaams-belang-case-before-the-cjeu/

Freedom of expression, Politics, Trademark law

RIS

TY  - BLOG
AU  - Izyumenko, E.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-10-14
T1  - Freedom of Political Expression as “Due Cause”: The Pending IKEA v. Vlaams Belang Case Before the CJEU
JO  - Kluwer Trademark Blog
UR  - https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/trademark-blog/freedom-of-political-expression-as-due-cause-the-pending-ikea-v-vlaams-belang-case-before-the-cjeu/
AB  - The pending IKEA v. Vlaams Belang case before the CJEU offers a key test of how freedom of expression (FoE) interacts with EU trademark law. IKEA sued the Belgian party Vlaams Belang for parodying its name, logo, and colours in a campaign titled “IKEA Plan” (Immigratie Kan Echt Anders—“Immigration Really Can Be Different”). The Belgian Enterprise Court asked the CJEU whether such political parody can constitute “due cause” under EU trademark rules and, if so, which factors should guide that assessment. The hearing took place in June 2025, with the Advocate General’s Opinion expected on 13 November 2025. This post considers the FoE factors identified by the Belgian court—rooted in ECtHR case-law—and their role in the proportionality analysis.
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Politics
K1  - Trademark law
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey,
	title = {Freedom of Political Expression as “Due Cause”: The Pending IKEA v. Vlaams Belang Case Before the CJEU},
	author = {Izyumenko, E.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-10-14},
	journal = {Kluwer Trademark Blog},
	abstract = {The pending IKEA v. Vlaams Belang case before the CJEU offers a key test of how freedom of expression (FoE) interacts with EU trademark law. IKEA sued the Belgian party Vlaams Belang for parodying its name, logo, and colours in a campaign titled “IKEA Plan” (Immigratie Kan Echt Anders—“Immigration Really Can Be Different”). The Belgian Enterprise Court asked the CJEU whether such political parody can constitute “due cause” under EU trademark rules and, if so, which factors should guide that assessment. The hearing took place in June 2025, with the Advocate General’s Opinion expected on 13 November 2025. This post considers the FoE factors identified by the Belgian court—rooted in ECtHR case-law—and their role in the proportionality analysis.},
	keywords = {Freedom of expression, Politics, Trademark law},
}

Save .bib

Freedom of expression and intellectual property external link

Geiger, C. & Izyumenko, E.

P. Torremans, I. Stamatoudi, P.K. Yu & J. Jutte (eds.), Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025, ISBN: 9781800886926

Links

Freedom of expression, Intellectual property

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The European Court of Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Still Waiting for the New Innovation Frontier? external link

Izyumenko, E.

2025

Abstract

This article explores the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on intellectual property (IP) law through human rights methodologies. While Professor Laurence Helfer, in his seminal article published in 2008, identified the ECtHR as an emerging innovation frontier in Europe, the extent to which this prediction has come to fruition might seem debatable. Notably, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), rather than that of the ECtHR, has largely dominated discussions on the intersection of IP and human rights in Europe. As such, this article seeks to analyse the ECtHR’s contribution to – and its actual impact on – the human rights-based adjudication of IP issues. After a short introduction (I), it begins by examining the possible reasons behind the relative obscurity of ECtHR decisions in the European IP law discourse (II). It then focuses on the Strasbourg Court’s contribution to the development of human rights-based IP adjudication, demonstrating that, despite the limited engagement of IP community with the ECtHR, its jurisprudence has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in shaping European IP law norms (III). This influence is assessed by first exploring the ECtHR-developed approaches to resolving conflicts between IP protection and freedom of expression (III.1), followed by an examination of the Court’s recognition of IP rights as an integral part of the broader human right to property – an area that has seen considerable expansion, particularly in recent years (III.2). Based on this analysis, the article concludes that we are certainly not waiting anymore for the ECtHR to become a new innovation frontier – it has already become one, having formed itself as a significant, albeit often underappreciated, force in the European IP legal landscape, operating quietly but far more meaningfully than is commonly recognised (IV).

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5375309

Freedom of expression, Human rights, Intellectual property

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Izyumenko, E.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-08-01
T1  - The European Court of Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Still Waiting for the New Innovation Frontier?
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5375309
AB  - This article explores the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on intellectual property (IP) law through human rights methodologies. While Professor Laurence Helfer, in his seminal article published in 2008, identified the ECtHR as an emerging innovation frontier in Europe, the extent to which this prediction has come to fruition might seem debatable. Notably, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), rather than that of the ECtHR, has largely dominated discussions on the intersection of IP and human rights in Europe. As such, this article seeks to analyse the ECtHR’s contribution to – and its actual impact on – the human rights-based adjudication of IP issues. After a short introduction (I), it begins by examining the possible reasons behind the relative obscurity of ECtHR decisions in the European IP law discourse (II). It then focuses on the Strasbourg Court’s contribution to the development of human rights-based IP adjudication, demonstrating that, despite the limited engagement of IP community with the ECtHR, its jurisprudence has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in shaping European IP law norms (III). This influence is assessed by first exploring the ECtHR-developed approaches to resolving conflicts between IP protection and freedom of expression (III.1), followed by an examination of the Court’s recognition of IP rights as an integral part of the broader human right to property – an area that has seen considerable expansion, particularly in recent years (III.2). Based on this analysis, the article concludes that we are certainly not waiting anymore for the ECtHR to become a new innovation frontier – it has already become one, having formed itself as a significant, albeit often underappreciated, force in the European IP legal landscape, operating quietly but far more meaningfully than is commonly recognised (IV).
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Human rights
K1  - Intellectual property
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {The European Court of Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Still Waiting for the New Innovation Frontier?},
	author = {Izyumenko, E.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-08-01},
	abstract = {This article explores the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on intellectual property (IP) law through human rights methodologies. While Professor Laurence Helfer, in his seminal article published in 2008, identified the ECtHR as an emerging innovation frontier in Europe, the extent to which this prediction has come to fruition might seem debatable. Notably, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), rather than that of the ECtHR, has largely dominated discussions on the intersection of IP and human rights in Europe. As such, this article seeks to analyse the ECtHR’s contribution to – and its actual impact on – the human rights-based adjudication of IP issues. After a short introduction (I), it begins by examining the possible reasons behind the relative obscurity of ECtHR decisions in the European IP law discourse (II). It then focuses on the Strasbourg Court’s contribution to the development of human rights-based IP adjudication, demonstrating that, despite the limited engagement of IP community with the ECtHR, its jurisprudence has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in shaping European IP law norms (III). This influence is assessed by first exploring the ECtHR-developed approaches to resolving conflicts between IP protection and freedom of expression (III.1), followed by an examination of the Court’s recognition of IP rights as an integral part of the broader human right to property – an area that has seen considerable expansion, particularly in recent years (III.2). Based on this analysis, the article concludes that we are certainly not waiting anymore for the ECtHR to become a new innovation frontier – it has already become one, having formed itself as a significant, albeit often underappreciated, force in the European IP legal landscape, operating quietly but far more meaningfully than is commonly recognised (IV).},
	keywords = {Freedom of expression, Human rights, Intellectual property},
}

Save .bib

Copyright as a Freedom of (Artistic) Expression Right? The Dangers and Human Rights Law Misconceptions in the AG’s Opinion in Pelham II external link

Izyumenko, E.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/copyright-as-a-freedom-of-artistic-expression-right-the-dangers-and-human-rights-law-misconceptions-in-the-ags-opinion-in-pelham-ii/

Copyright, Freedom of expression, Human rights

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Public Knowledge and Expertise Under Authoritarian Siege: A Defense of Academic Freedom from Digital Journalism Studies external link

Westlund, O., Carlson, M., Hamada, B., Helberger, N., Lecheler, S., Lewis, S.C., Quandt, T., Reese, S.D., Salaverria, R., Saldana, M., Thomson, T.J., Wahl-Jorgensen, K. & Wu, S.

Digital Journalism, vol. 13, iss. : 5, pp: 869–892, 2025

Abstract

This article addresses the growing global assault on academic free-dom—a cornerstone of democratic societies now under increasingthreat from authoritarian regimes. It highlights a global decline inthat freedom since its peak 20 years ago, focusing on the UnitedStates in 2025 to illustrate rapidly escalating academic silencing, evenin a country with well-established democratic freedoms and institu-tions. Drawing on the collective expertise of international scholars indigital journalism studies (DJS)—a field situated at the crossroads ofvulnerable institutions—and informed by anonymous reports fromU.S.-based academics as well as the wider academic literature, thiscommentary examines the impact of political interference, censorship,and self-censorship in academia. It argues that DJS as a field mustdevelop approaches that actively resist authoritarianism and upholdfreedom of expression and inquiry. The commentary concludes witha normative framework for doing this, proposing a three-prongedapproach to defending the larger field, the scholarship within it, andthe wellbeing of individual scholars of digital journalism studies.

Links

academic freedom, academic research, censorship, Freedom of expression

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Westlund, O.
AU  - Carlson, M.
AU  - Hamada, B.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Lecheler, S.
AU  - Lewis, S.C.
AU  - Quandt, T.
AU  - Reese, S.D.
AU  - Salaverria, R.
AU  - Saldana, M.
AU  - Thomson, T.J.
AU  - Wahl-Jorgensen, K.
AU  - Wu, S.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-04
T1  - Public Knowledge and Expertise Under Authoritarian Siege: A Defense of Academic Freedom from Digital Journalism Studies
JO  - Digital Journalism
VL  - 13
IS  - 5
SP  - 869–892
UR  - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2025.2527997
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2527997
AB  - This article addresses the growing global assault on academic free-dom—a cornerstone of democratic societies now under increasingthreat from authoritarian regimes. It highlights a global decline inthat freedom since its peak 20 years ago, focusing on the UnitedStates in 2025 to illustrate rapidly escalating academic silencing, evenin a country with well-established democratic freedoms and institu-tions. Drawing on the collective expertise of international scholars indigital journalism studies (DJS)—a field situated at the crossroads ofvulnerable institutions—and informed by anonymous reports fromU.S.-based academics as well as the wider academic literature, thiscommentary examines the impact of political interference, censorship,and self-censorship in academia. It argues that DJS as a field mustdevelop approaches that actively resist authoritarianism and upholdfreedom of expression and inquiry. The commentary concludes witha normative framework for doing this, proposing a three-prongedapproach to defending the larger field, the scholarship within it, andthe wellbeing of individual scholars of digital journalism studies.
K1  - academic freedom
K1  - academic research
K1  - censorship
K1  - Freedom of expression
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Public Knowledge and Expertise Under Authoritarian Siege: A Defense of Academic Freedom from Digital Journalism Studies},
	author = {Westlund, O. and Carlson, M. and Hamada, B. and Helberger, N. and Lecheler, S. and Lewis, S.C. and Quandt, T. and Reese, S.D. and Salaverria, R. and Saldana, M. and Thomson, T.J. and Wahl-Jorgensen, K. and Wu, S.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2527997},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-04},
	journal = {Digital Journalism},
	volume = {13},
	issue = {5},
	pages = {869–892},
	abstract = {This article addresses the growing global assault on academic free-dom—a cornerstone of democratic societies now under increasingthreat from authoritarian regimes. It highlights a global decline inthat freedom since its peak 20 years ago, focusing on the UnitedStates in 2025 to illustrate rapidly escalating academic silencing, evenin a country with well-established democratic freedoms and institu-tions. Drawing on the collective expertise of international scholars indigital journalism studies (DJS)—a field situated at the crossroads ofvulnerable institutions—and informed by anonymous reports fromU.S.-based academics as well as the wider academic literature, thiscommentary examines the impact of political interference, censorship,and self-censorship in academia. It argues that DJS as a field mustdevelop approaches that actively resist authoritarianism and upholdfreedom of expression and inquiry. The commentary concludes witha normative framework for doing this, proposing a three-prongedapproach to defending the larger field, the scholarship within it, andthe wellbeing of individual scholars of digital journalism studies.},
	keywords = {academic freedom, academic research, censorship, Freedom of expression},
}

Save .bib

Fashion Waste, Trade Mark Protection, and the Circular Economy: Towards a New Public Domain for Sustainable Reuse download

Senftleben, M.

The Handbook of Fashion Law, Oxford University Press, 2025, Oxford, pp: 115–136, ISBN: 9780198938897

Abstract

Traditionally, the debate on trade mark law and the public domain has focused on the strategic use of trade mark law to artificially prolong exclusive rights after the expiry of protection in intellectual property systems with a limited term, and the grant of trade mark rights covering public domain material, such as cultural signs and traditional cultural expressions. While the glamorous world of fashion offers examples of protection term extension and public domain re-appropriation cases, the following analysis focuses on fashion reuse in the circular economy as a phenomenon that can be placed in a public domain context. Considering the urgent need for measures to enhance legal certainty for sustainable fashion reuse in the circular economy, the question arises whether the time has come to discuss a limitation of trade mark rights and a corresponding broadening of the public domain. More concretely, it seems tempting to establish a new public domain by giving second-hand and unsold fashion items the status of freely available resources for sustainable upcycling and reuse in the circular economy—even if these fashion items bear protected third-party brand insignia. Exploring options for the practical implementation of this new public domain space, the analysis will yield the insight that the termination of trade mark rights is beyond reach. Alternatively, however, lawmakers and judges could consider introducing a robust principle of free reuse that shields initiatives leading to the sustainable reuse of trade-marked fashion items effectively against allegations of trade mark infringement.

Links

Fashion, Freedom of expression, Intellectual property, public domain, trade mark

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-02-14
T1  - Fashion Waste, Trade Mark Protection, and the Circular Economy: Towards a New Public Domain for Sustainable Reuse
SP  - 115–136
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/fashion-waste-trade-mark-protection-and-the-circular-economy-towards-a-new-public-domain-for-sustainable-reuse/fashion-waste-new-public-domain/
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198938897.003.0006
AB  - Traditionally, the debate on trade mark law and the public domain has focused on the strategic use of trade mark law to artificially prolong exclusive rights after the expiry of protection in intellectual property systems with a limited term, and the grant of trade mark rights covering public domain material, such as cultural signs and traditional cultural expressions. While the glamorous world of fashion offers examples of protection term extension and public domain re-appropriation cases, the following analysis focuses on fashion reuse in the circular economy as a phenomenon that can be placed in a public domain context. Considering the urgent need for measures to enhance legal certainty for sustainable fashion reuse in the circular economy, the question arises whether the time has come to discuss a limitation of trade mark rights and a corresponding broadening of the public domain. More concretely, it seems tempting to establish a new public domain by giving second-hand and unsold fashion items the status of freely available resources for sustainable upcycling and reuse in the circular economy—even if these fashion items bear protected third-party brand insignia. Exploring options for the practical implementation of this new public domain space, the analysis will yield the insight that the termination of trade mark rights is beyond reach. Alternatively, however, lawmakers and judges could consider introducing a robust principle of free reuse that shields initiatives leading to the sustainable reuse of trade-marked fashion items effectively against allegations of trade mark infringement.
K1  - Fashion
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Intellectual property
K1  - public domain
K1  - trade mark
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {Fashion Waste, Trade Mark Protection, and the Circular Economy: Towards a New Public Domain for Sustainable Reuse},
	author = {Senftleben, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198938897.003.0006},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-02-14},
	pages = {115–136},
	abstract = {Traditionally, the debate on trade mark law and the public domain has focused on the strategic use of trade mark law to artificially prolong exclusive rights after the expiry of protection in intellectual property systems with a limited term, and the grant of trade mark rights covering public domain material, such as cultural signs and traditional cultural expressions. While the glamorous world of fashion offers examples of protection term extension and public domain re-appropriation cases, the following analysis focuses on fashion reuse in the circular economy as a phenomenon that can be placed in a public domain context. Considering the urgent need for measures to enhance legal certainty for sustainable fashion reuse in the circular economy, the question arises whether the time has come to discuss a limitation of trade mark rights and a corresponding broadening of the public domain. More concretely, it seems tempting to establish a new public domain by giving second-hand and unsold fashion items the status of freely available resources for sustainable upcycling and reuse in the circular economy—even if these fashion items bear protected third-party brand insignia. Exploring options for the practical implementation of this new public domain space, the analysis will yield the insight that the termination of trade mark rights is beyond reach. Alternatively, however, lawmakers and judges could consider introducing a robust principle of free reuse that shields initiatives leading to the sustainable reuse of trade-marked fashion items effectively against allegations of trade mark infringement.},
	keywords = {Fashion, Freedom of expression, Intellectual property, public domain, trade mark},
}

Save .bib

The Regulation of Disinformation Under the Digital Services Act external link

Fahy, R., Buijs, D. & van Hoboken, J.

Media and Communication, vol. 13, 2025

Abstract

This article critically examines the regulation of disinformation under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). It begins by analysing how the DSA applies to disinformation, discussing how the DSA facilitates the removal of illegal disinformation, and on the other hand, how it can protect users’ freedom of expression against the removal of certain content classified as disinformation. The article then moves to the DSA’s special risk‐based rules, which apply to Very Large Online Platforms in relation to mitigation of systemic risks relating to disinformation, and are to be enforced by the European Commission. We analyse recent regulatory action by the Commission in tackling disinformation within its DSA competencies, and assess these actions from a fundamental rights perspective, focusing on freedom of expression guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Links

Digital Services Act (DSA), disinformation, Freedom of expression, Online platforms

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Buijs, D.
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-28
T1  - The Regulation of Disinformation Under the Digital Services Act
JO  - Media and Communication
VL  - 13
UR  - https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/9615
DO  - https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.9615
AB  - This article critically examines the regulation of disinformation under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). It begins by analysing how the DSA applies to disinformation, discussing how the DSA facilitates the removal of illegal disinformation, and on the other hand, how it can protect users’ freedom of expression against the removal of certain content classified as disinformation. The article then moves to the DSA’s special risk‐based rules, which apply to Very Large Online Platforms in relation to mitigation of systemic risks relating to disinformation, and are to be enforced by the European Commission. We analyse recent regulatory action by the Commission in tackling disinformation within its DSA competencies, and assess these actions from a fundamental rights perspective, focusing on freedom of expression guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - disinformation
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Online platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {The Regulation of Disinformation Under the Digital Services Act},
	author = {Fahy, R. and Buijs, D. and van Hoboken, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.9615},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-28},
	journal = {Media and Communication},
	volume = {13},
	abstract = {This article critically examines the regulation of disinformation under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). It begins by analysing how the DSA applies to disinformation, discussing how the DSA facilitates the removal of illegal disinformation, and on the other hand, how it can protect users’ freedom of expression against the removal of certain content classified as disinformation. The article then moves to the DSA’s special risk‐based rules, which apply to Very Large Online Platforms in relation to mitigation of systemic risks relating to disinformation, and are to be enforced by the European Commission. We analyse recent regulatory action by the Commission in tackling disinformation within its DSA competencies, and assess these actions from a fundamental rights perspective, focusing on freedom of expression guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.},
	keywords = {Digital Services Act (DSA), disinformation, Freedom of expression, Online platforms},
}

Save .bib