The perils of legally defining disinformation

The perils of legally defining disinformation external link

Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, num: 4, 2021

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.

Links

desinformatie, EU law, frontpage, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Appelman, N.
PY  - 1112
DA  - 2021-11-12
T1  - The perils of legally defining disinformation
JO  - Internet Policy Review
VL  - 10
NV  - 4
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/InternetPolicyReview_2021.pdf
DO  - https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1584
AB  - 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.
K1  - desinformatie
K1  - EU law
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {The perils of legally defining disinformation},
	author = {Fahy, R. and Helberger, N. and Appelman, N.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1584},
	year = {1112},
	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 = {desinformatie, EU law, frontpage, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law external link

Sakulin, W.

2011, Series: Information Law Series, ISBN: 9789041134158

Abstract

Trademark law grants right holders an exclusive right to prevent third parties from using a sign. This can readily be seen as the antithesis of freedom of expression, which arguably includes a right of third parties to non-exclusive use of a sign for a variety of purposes, ranging from informing consumers, to voicing criticism or to artistic expression. Drawing on cultural theory – which has shown that society is involved in a constant struggle about shaping the meaning of signs (including trademarks) – this highly original and provocative book contends that trademark law fails to sufficiently differentiate between commercial purpose and the social, political, or cultural meanings carried by one and the same sign. The author shows that the ‘functional approach’ to justifying trademark rights taken in current jurisprudence and doctrine is deficient, in that it does not take sufficient account of the fact that trademark rights can restrict the freedom of expression of third parties. Specifically, the exercise of rights granted under the European Trademark Regulation and the national trademark rights harmonized by the European Trademark Directive can cause a disproportionate impairment of the freedom of commercial and non-commercial expression of third parties as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Links

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1515239/75293_thesis.pdf

Kluwer Information Law Series, Merkenrecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - BOOK
AU  - Sakulin, W.
PY  - 2011
DA  - 2011-01-01
T1  - Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law
UR  - https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1515239/75293_thesis.pdf
AB  - Trademark law grants right holders an exclusive right to prevent third parties from using a sign. This can readily be seen as the antithesis of freedom of expression, which arguably includes a right of third parties to non-exclusive use of a sign for a variety of purposes, ranging from informing consumers, to voicing criticism or to artistic expression. Drawing on cultural theory – which has shown that society is involved in a constant struggle about shaping the meaning of signs (including trademarks) – this highly original and provocative book contends that trademark law fails to sufficiently differentiate between commercial purpose and the social, political, or cultural meanings carried by one and the same sign. The author shows that the ‘functional approach’ to justifying trademark rights taken in current jurisprudence and doctrine is deficient, in that it does not take sufficient account of the fact that trademark rights can restrict the freedom of expression of third parties. Specifically, the exercise of rights granted under the European Trademark Regulation and the national trademark rights harmonized by the European Trademark Directive can cause a disproportionate impairment of the freedom of commercial and non-commercial expression of third parties as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
K1  - Kluwer Information Law Series
K1  - Merkenrecht
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Book{ILS22,
	title = {Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law},
	author = {Sakulin, W.},
	year = {2011},
	date = {2011-01-01},
	abstract = {Trademark law grants right holders an exclusive right to prevent third parties from using a sign. This can readily be seen as the antithesis of freedom of expression, which arguably includes a right of third parties to non-exclusive use of a sign for a variety of purposes, ranging from informing consumers, to voicing criticism or to artistic expression. Drawing on cultural theory – which has shown that society is involved in a constant struggle about shaping the meaning of signs (including trademarks) – this highly original and provocative book contends that trademark law fails to sufficiently differentiate between commercial purpose and the social, political, or cultural meanings carried by one and the same sign. The author shows that the ‘functional approach’ to justifying trademark rights taken in current jurisprudence and doctrine is deficient, in that it does not take sufficient account of the fact that trademark rights can restrict the freedom of expression of third parties. Specifically, the exercise of rights granted under the European Trademark Regulation and the national trademark rights harmonized by the European Trademark Directive can cause a disproportionate impairment of the freedom of commercial and non-commercial expression of third parties as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).},
	keywords = {Kluwer Information Law Series, Merkenrecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Protecting Works of Fact: Copyright, Freedom of Expression and Information Law external link

Dommering, E. & Hugenholtz, P.B.

Kluwer Law International, 1991, Series: Information Law Series, ISBN: 9789065445674

Abstract

With the year 2000 in sight, the information industry is changing into second gear. New information services are introduced each day, using telecommunications networks or newly developed carrier media. Factual information, such as stock market data, weather reports, topographical data and business news, is rapidly becoming a very valuable commodity. And wherever business is booming, piracy is looming. Can copyright law provide adequate protection? Is there a conflict between a copyright in works of fact and the freedom of expression? Are information monopolies compatible with the EEC Treaty? 'Protecting Works of Fact' is about these and other dilemma's of information law. The book contains a collection of articles written by legal scholars and practitioners. Most articles were originally presented at the `Copyright in Information' conference of the Institute for Information Law (University of Amsterdam), which was held in Amsterdam on December 1, 1989. In addition, the book contains a general introduction to information law.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1_9789041180742.pdf

Auteursrecht, Informatierecht, Kluwer Information Law Series, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - BOOK
AU  - Dommering, E.
AU  - Hugenholtz, P.B.
PY  - 1991
DA  - 1991-01-01
T1  - Protecting Works of Fact: Copyright, Freedom of Expression and Information Law
VL  - 1
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1_9789041180742.pdf
AB  - With the year 2000 in sight, the information industry is changing into second gear. New information services are introduced each day, using telecommunications networks or newly developed carrier media. Factual information, such as stock market data, weather reports, topographical data and business news, is rapidly becoming a very valuable commodity. And wherever business is booming, piracy is looming. Can copyright law provide adequate protection? Is there a conflict between a copyright in works of fact and the freedom of expression? Are information monopolies compatible with the EEC Treaty?
\'Protecting Works of Fact\' is about these and other dilemma\'s of information law. The book contains a collection of articles written by legal scholars and practitioners. Most articles were originally presented at the `Copyright in Information\' conference of the Institute for Information Law (University of Amsterdam), which was held in Amsterdam on December 1, 1989. In addition, the book contains a general introduction to information law.
K1  - Auteursrecht
K1  - Informatierecht
K1  - Kluwer Information Law Series
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Book{nokey,
	title = {Protecting Works of Fact: Copyright, Freedom of Expression and Information Law},
	author = {Dommering, E. and Hugenholtz, P.B.},
	year = {1991},
	date = {1991-01-01},
	volume = {1},
	abstract = {With the year 2000 in sight, the information industry is changing into second gear. New information services are introduced each day, using telecommunications networks or newly developed carrier media. Factual information, such as stock market data, weather reports, topographical data and business news, is rapidly becoming a very valuable commodity. And wherever business is booming, piracy is looming. Can copyright law provide adequate protection? Is there a conflict between a copyright in works of fact and the freedom of expression? Are information monopolies compatible with the EEC Treaty?
\'Protecting Works of Fact\' is about these and other dilemma\'s of information law. The book contains a collection of articles written by legal scholars and practitioners. Most articles were originally presented at the `Copyright in Information\' conference of the Institute for Information Law (University of Amsterdam), which was held in Amsterdam on December 1, 1989. In addition, the book contains a general introduction to information law.},
	keywords = {Auteursrecht, Informatierecht, Kluwer Information Law Series, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy external link

van Hoboken, J. & Fahy, R.

UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, vol. 6, num: 1, pp: 9-36, 2021

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.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Regulating-Disinformation-in-Europe.pdf

disinformatie, frontpage, Privacy, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Fahy, R.
PY  - 0601
DA  - 2021-06-01
T1  - Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy
JO  - UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law
VL  - 6
NV  - 1
SP  - 9-36
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Regulating-Disinformation-in-Europe.pdf
AB  - 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.
K1  - disinformatie
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Privacy
K1  - Regulering
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{vanHoboken2021,
	title = {Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy},
	author = {van Hoboken, J. and Fahy, R.},
	year = {0601},
	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 = {disinformatie, frontpage, Privacy, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights external link

Voorhoof, D. & McGonagle, T.

2021

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).

Links

https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-2020-edition-en-28-april-2021-/1680a24eee

ECHR, frontpage, Grondrechten, Journalistiek, jurisprudentie, Mediarecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 1 oktober 2019 (nr. 17/01305) external link

Dommering, E.

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, num: 5/6, pp: 550-551, 2021

Abstract

Schending geheimhoudingsplicht lid Antilliaanse parlement.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_29.pdf

Annotaties, frontpage, geheimhoudingsplicht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij EHRM 8 oktober 2019 (Szurovecz / Hongarije) external link

Dommering, E.

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, num: 4, pp: 230-231, 2021

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.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_13.pdf

Annotaties, Art. 10 EVRM, frontpage, Mediarecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting, vrijheid van nieuwsgaring

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising external link

van Hoboken, J., Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N. & Helberger, N.

2020

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.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf

desinformatie, frontpage, internetdiensten, Mediarecht, politieke advertenties, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Appelman, N.
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Leerssen, P.
AU  - McGonagle, T.
AU  - van Eijk, N.
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 0514
DA  - 2020-05-14
T1  - The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf
AB  - 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.
K1  - desinformatie
K1  - frontpage
K1  - internetdiensten
K1  - Mediarecht
K1  - politieke advertenties
K1  - Regulering
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{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.},
	year = {0514},
	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.},
	keywords = {desinformatie, frontpage, internetdiensten, Mediarecht, politieke advertenties, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties external link

van Hoboken, J., Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N. & Helberger, N.

2020

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.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf

democratie, desinformatie, frontpage, internetdiensten, Mediarecht, politieke advertenties, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Appelman, N.
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Leerssen, P.
AU  - McGonagle, T.
AU  - van Eijk, N.
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 0514
DA  - 2020-05-14
T1  - Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf
AB  - 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.
K1  - democratie
K1  - desinformatie
K1  - frontpage
K1  - internetdiensten
K1  - Mediarecht
K1  - politieke advertenties
K1  - Regulering
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{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.},
	year = {0514},
	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.},
	keywords = {democratie, desinformatie, frontpage, internetdiensten, Mediarecht, politieke advertenties, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights external link

Voorhoof, D. & McGonagle, T.

0508

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.

Links

https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-ed-2020-en-2/16809e45e7

EHRM, frontpage, Journalistiek, jurisprudentie, Mediarecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib