Freedom of expression
| McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.
Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights 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) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (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) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (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.
|
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.
The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 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}, 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). }, 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). |
| Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M.
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.}, 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.
Florida International University Law Review, 14 (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. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.
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. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.
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. |
| McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.
Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights 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.
|
| Dreier, T., Derclaye E., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Hilty, R., Hugenholtz, P., Metzger, A., Riis, T., Rognstad, O.A., Senftleben, M., Strowel, A.M., Synodinou, T., Xalabarder, R.
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 Mediaforum, (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 Mediaforum, (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} } |
| Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J.
Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression 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 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (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 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) 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.
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 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 Internet Policy Review, 8 (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.
|
| Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.
Denying journalist access to asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated Article 10 ECHR 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.
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) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (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) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (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 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 Common Market Law Review, 56 (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 European Yearbook of Minority Issues, 16 (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 Communications Law, 24 (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.
|
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 26 juni 2018 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (25), pp. 3503-3504, 2019. @article{Dommering2019c,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 26 juni 2018 }, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2019_214.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-06-20}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {25}, pages = {3503-3504}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| McGonagle, T.
Annotatie bij EHRM 10 januari 2019 (Khadija Ismayilova / Azerbeidzjan) European Human Rights Cases, 2019 (5), pp. 257-260, 2019. @article{McGonagle2019e,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 10 januari 2019 (Khadija Ismayilova / Azerbeidzjan)}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_EHRC_2019_5_86.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-10}, journal = {European Human Rights Cases}, volume = {2019}, number = {5}, pages = {257-260}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| McGonagle, T.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 14 februari 2019 (Buivids) European Human Rights Cases, 2019 (5), pp. 253-255, 2019. @article{McGonagle2019f,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 14 februari 2019 (Buivids)}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_EHRC_2019_5_84.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-10}, journal = {European Human Rights Cases}, volume = {2019}, number = {5}, pages = {253-255}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Jütte, B., Quintais, J.
Advocate General Turns down the Music - Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law European Intellectual Property Review , 41 (10), pp. 654-657, 2019. @article{J\"{u}tte2019,
title = { Advocate General Turns down the Music - Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law}, author = {J\"{u}tte, B. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377205}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-09}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review }, volume = {41}, number = {10}, pages = {654-657}, abstract = {In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions \textendash especially quotation \textendash and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions – especially quotation – and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.
|
| van Hoboken, J.
2019. @article{vanHoboken2019,
title = {The Proposed EU Terrorism Content Regulation: Analysis and Recommendations with Respect to Freedom of Expression Implications}, author = {van Hoboken, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TERREG_FoE-ANALYSIS.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-09}, abstract = {Working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression
|
| Heller, B., van Hoboken, J.
Freedom of Expression: A Comparative Summary of United States and European Law 2019. @article{Heller2019,
title = {Freedom of Expression: A Comparative Summary of United States and European Law}, author = {Heller, B. and van Hoboken, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TWG_Freedom_of_Expression.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-09}, abstract = {Working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression
|
| Leerssen, P., Tworek, H.,
An Analysis of Germany's NetzDG Law 2019, ( First working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression). @article{Tworek2019,
title = {An Analysis of Germany's NetzDG Law}, author = {Tworek, H., and Leerssen, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/NetzDG_Tworek_Leerssen_April_2019.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-04-18}, note = { First working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Til, G. van
Zelfregulering door online platforms: een waar wondermiddel tegen online desinformatie? Mediaforum, 2019 (1), pp. 2-13, 2019. @article{Til2019b,
title = {Zelfregulering door online platforms: een waar wondermiddel tegen online desinformatie?}, author = {Til, G. van}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2019_1_vanTil.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-03-29}, journal = {Mediaforum}, volume = {2019}, number = {1}, pages = {2-13}, abstract = {In aanloop naar de Europese parlementsverkiezingen van mei 2019 heeft de Europese Commissie haar inspanningen in de bestrijding van online desinformatie opgevoerd. Veel hoop is daarbij gevestigd op een initiatief van zelfregulering door online platforms en de advertentie-industrie in de vorm van een Code of Practice. In dit artikel wordt de rol die de Europese Commissie momenteel voor zichzelf weggelegd ziet voor zelfregulering kritisch beschouwd en wordt aansluiting gezocht bij een pleidooi voor een meer gezamenlijke aanpak van het probleem van online desinformatie.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In aanloop naar de Europese parlementsverkiezingen van mei 2019 heeft de Europese Commissie haar inspanningen in de bestrijding van online desinformatie opgevoerd. Veel hoop is daarbij gevestigd op een initiatief van zelfregulering door online platforms en de advertentie-industrie in de vorm van een Code of Practice. In dit artikel wordt de rol die de Europese Commissie momenteel voor zichzelf weggelegd ziet voor zelfregulering kritisch beschouwd en wordt aansluiting gezocht bij een pleidooi voor een meer gezamenlijke aanpak van het probleem van online desinformatie.
|
| McGonagle, T.
Annotatie bij EHRM 4 december 2018 (Magyar Jeti Zrt / Hongarije) European Human Rights Cases, 2019 (3), pp. 170-174, 2019. @article{McGonagle2019c,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 4 december 2018 (Magyar Jeti Zrt / Hongarije)}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_EHRC_2019_3.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-03-29}, journal = {European Human Rights Cases}, volume = {2019}, number = {3}, pages = {170-174}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Thije, P. ten
Online platforms and the advertising industry deliver EU Code of Practice on disinformation IRIS Newsletter , 2019. @article{tenThije2019a,
title = {Online platforms and the advertising industry deliver EU Code of Practice on disinformation}, author = {Thije, P. ten}, url = {https://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2019/1/article7.en.html}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-01-01}, urldate = {2019-01-14}, journal = {IRIS Newsletter }, organization = {IRIS Newsletter & Merlin Database}, abstract = {The newsletter and Merlin Database entry describe the most recent European Union Code of Practice on disinformation and fake news. The code of practice was created by online platforms such as Google and Facebook and the advertising industry to counter fake news online.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The newsletter and Merlin Database entry describe the most recent European Union Code of Practice on disinformation and fake news. The code of practice was created by online platforms such as Google and Facebook and the advertising industry to counter fake news online.
|
| Harambam, J.
Sociologie, 13 (1), pp. 73-92, 2018, ISSN: 1875-7138. @article{Harambam2017,
title = {De/politisering van de Waarheid: Complottheorie\"{e}n, alternatieve feiten en nepnieuws in het tijdperk van de postwaarheid}, author = {Harambam, J. }, url = {https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/aup/soc/2017/00000013/00000001/art00007#}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.5117/SOC2017.1.HARA}, issn = {1875-7138}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-11-23}, journal = {Sociologie}, volume = {13}, number = {1}, pages = {73-92}, abstract = {The Truth dominates many public discussions today. Conventional truths from established epistemic authorities about all sorts of issues, from climate change to terrorist attacks, are increasingly challenged by ordinary citizens and presidents alike. Many have therefore proclaimed that we have entered a post-truth era: a world in which objective facts are no longer relevant. Media and politics speak in alarmist discourse about how fake news, conspiracy theories and alternative facts threaten democratic societies by destabilizing the Truth ‐ a clear sign of a moral panic. In this essay, I firstly explore what sociological changes have led to (so much commotion about) the alleged demise of the Truth. In contrast to the idea that we have moved beyond it, I argue that we are amidst public battles about the Truth: at stake is who gets to decide over that and why. I then discuss and criticize the dominant counter reaction (re-establishing the idea of one objective and irrefutable truth), which I see as an unsuccessful de-politisation strategy. Basing myself on research and experiments with epistemic democracy in the field of science studies, I end with a more effective and democratic alternative of how to deal with knowledge in the complex information landscape of today.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The Truth dominates many public discussions today. Conventional truths from established epistemic authorities about all sorts of issues, from climate change to terrorist attacks, are increasingly challenged by ordinary citizens and presidents alike. Many have therefore proclaimed that we have entered a post-truth era: a world in which objective facts are no longer relevant. Media and politics speak in alarmist discourse about how fake news, conspiracy theories and alternative facts threaten democratic societies by destabilizing the Truth ‐ a clear sign of a moral panic. In this essay, I firstly explore what sociological changes have led to (so much commotion about) the alleged demise of the Truth. In contrast to the idea that we have moved beyond it, I argue that we are amidst public battles about the Truth: at stake is who gets to decide over that and why. I then discuss and criticize the dominant counter reaction (re-establishing the idea of one objective and irrefutable truth), which I see as an unsuccessful de-politisation strategy. Basing myself on research and experiments with epistemic democracy in the field of science studies, I end with a more effective and democratic alternative of how to deal with knowledge in the complex information landscape of today.
|
| Coche, E.
Internet Policy Review, 2018 (4), 2018. @article{Coche2018g,
title = {Privatised enforcement and the right to freedom of expression in a world confronted with terrorism propaganda online}, author = {Coche, E.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/privatised-enforcement-and-right-freedom-expression-world-confronted-terrorism}, doi = {10.14763/2018.4.1382}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-11-06}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {2018}, number = {4}, abstract = {The purpose of this paper is to explore the risks of privatised enforcement in the field of terrorism propaganda, stemming from the EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. By shedding light on this Code, the author argues that implementation of it may undermine the rule of law and give rise to private censorship. In order to outweigh these risks, IT companies should improve their transparency, especially towards users whose content have been affected. Where automated means are used, the companies should always have in place some form of human intervention in order to contextualise posts. At the EU level, the Commission should provide IT companies with clearer guidelines regarding their liability exemption under the e-Commerce Directive. This would help prevent a race-to-the bottom where intermediaries choose to interpret and apply the most stringent national laws in order to secure at utmost their liability. The paper further articulates on the fine line that exists between ‘terrorist content’ and ‘illegal hate speech’ and the need for more detailed definitions.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The purpose of this paper is to explore the risks of privatised enforcement in the field of terrorism propaganda, stemming from the EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. By shedding light on this Code, the author argues that implementation of it may undermine the rule of law and give rise to private censorship. In order to outweigh these risks, IT companies should improve their transparency, especially towards users whose content have been affected. Where automated means are used, the companies should always have in place some form of human intervention in order to contextualise posts. At the EU level, the Commission should provide IT companies with clearer guidelines regarding their liability exemption under the e-Commerce Directive. This would help prevent a race-to-the bottom where intermediaries choose to interpret and apply the most stringent national laws in order to secure at utmost their liability. The paper further articulates on the fine line that exists between ‘terrorist content’ and ‘illegal hate speech’ and the need for more detailed definitions.
|
| Nieuwenhuis, A.
Mediaforum, 2018 (3), pp. 58-66, 2018. @article{Nieuwenhuis2018,
title = {Op zoek naar het publieke debat. Over de afbakening door het EHRM van een bij uitstek beschermde categorie uitlatingen}, author = {Nieuwenhuis, A.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2018_3.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-08-03}, journal = {Mediaforum}, volume = {2018}, number = {3}, pages = {58-66}, abstract = {De vrijheid van meningsuiting heeft meer gewicht bij uitlatingen die deel uitmaken van het publiek debat. Dat is een bekend uitgangspunt dat ook door het EHRM gehanteerd wordt. Daarmee is de vraag hoe deze categorie met name beschermde uitlatingen wordt afgebakend nog niet beantwoord. Deze bijdrage tracht op grond van een analyse van de jurisprudentie van het EHRM antwoord op deze vraag te geven. Er wordt in het bijzonder ook onderzocht of de benadering van het Hof consistent is.<./p>}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } De vrijheid van meningsuiting heeft meer gewicht bij uitlatingen die deel uitmaken van het publiek debat. Dat is een bekend uitgangspunt dat ook door het EHRM gehanteerd wordt. Daarmee is de vraag hoe deze categorie met name beschermde uitlatingen wordt afgebakend nog niet beantwoord. Deze bijdrage tracht op grond van een analyse van de jurisprudentie van het EHRM antwoord op deze vraag te geven. Er wordt in het bijzonder ook onderzocht of de benadering van het Hof consistent is.<./p>
|
| Kabel, J.
Annotatie bij EHRM 30 januari 2018 (Sekmadienis Ltd. / Litouwen) Mediaforum, 2018 (3), pp. 84-87, 2018. @article{Kabel2018c,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 30 januari 2018 (Sekmadienis Ltd. / Litouwen)}, author = {Kabel, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Mediaforum_2018_3.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-08-03}, journal = {Mediaforum}, volume = {2018}, number = {3}, pages = {84-87}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.
Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights 2018, (IRIS Themes, Vol. III, 4th edition, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, 2017 @book{McGonagle2018,
title = {Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights}, author = {McGonagle, T. and Voorhoof, D.}, url = {https://rm.coe.int/freedom-of-expression-the-media-and-journalists-iris-themes-vol-iii-de/16807c1181}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-05-17}, 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. With well over 30,000 downloads, the first three editions of the e-book (2013, 2015 and 2016) have proved hugely successful. The new fourth edition summarises over 270 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, Vol. III, 4th edition, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, 2017 ISBN: 9789287184351 (print version).}, 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. With well over 30,000 downloads, the first three editions of the e-book (2013, 2015 and 2016) have proved hugely successful. The new fourth edition summarises over 270 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.
|
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij EHRM 27 juni 2017 (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy & Satamedia Oy / Finland) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2018 (8), pp. 984-987, 2018. @article{Dommering2018c,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 27 juni 2017 (Satakunnan Markkinap\"{o}rssi Oy & Satamedia Oy / Finland)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2018_67.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-03-13}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, volume = {2018}, number = {8}, pages = {984-987}, abstract = {In Finland mogen openbare fiscale inkomensgegevens niet onbeperkt worden gepubliceerd: er moet een afweging plaatsvinden welk algemeen belang daarmee is gediend. Deze afweging is vergelijkbaar met die voor algemene privacy inbreuken door de pers geldt. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In Finland mogen openbare fiscale inkomensgegevens niet onbeperkt worden gepubliceerd: er moet een afweging plaatsvinden welk algemeen belang daarmee is gediend. Deze afweging is vergelijkbaar met die voor algemene privacy inbreuken door de pers geldt.
|
| Dommering, E.
De Intocht van Boniklasius in Dokkum, dertien eeuwen later Mediaforum, 2017 (7/8), pp. 217, 2018, (Opinie). @article{Dommering2018b,
title = {De Intocht van Boniklasius in Dokkum, dertien eeuwen later}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2017_7_8_opinie.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-02-13}, journal = {Mediaforum}, volume = {2017}, number = {7/8}, pages = {217}, note = {Opinie}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij EHRM 15 oktober 2016 (Perinçek / Zwitserland) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2017 (51), pp. 6854-6557, 2018. @article{Dommering2018,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 15 oktober 2016 (Perin\c{c}ek / Zwitserland) }, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2017_451.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-01-05}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, volume = {2017}, number = {51}, pages = {6854-6557}, abstract = {Uitlatingen van een Turkse politicus over de Armeense genocide (waarvan hij het bestaan ontkende) ten onrechte in Zwitserland veroordeeld.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Uitlatingen van een Turkse politicus over de Armeense genocide (waarvan hij het bestaan ontkende) ten onrechte in Zwitserland veroordeeld.
|
| Dommering, E., Voorhoof, D.
Mediaforum, 2017 (5), pp. 177-179, 2017. @article{Voorhoof2017,
title = {Boekbespreking van Egbert Dommering, Het verschil van mening. Geschiedenis van een verkeerd begrepen idee.}, author = {Voorhoof, D. and Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2017_5.pdf}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-11-28}, journal = {Mediaforum}, volume = {2017}, number = {5}, pages = {177-179}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Dommering, E.
De Hoge Raad en Mein Kampf: Over een veranderde maar ongewisse koers 2017, (In: Verandering van Koers, H.A. Groen c.s. red., Uitgeverij Datawyse 2017, ISBN 9789462957404, p. 13-20.). @article{Dommering2017b,
title = {De Hoge Raad en Mein Kampf: Over een veranderde maar ongewisse koers}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/De-Hoge-Raad-en-Mein-Kampf.pdf}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-11-16}, note = {In: Verandering van Koers, H.A. Groen c.s. red., Uitgeverij Datawyse 2017, ISBN 9789462957404, p. 13-20.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Fahy, R.
The Chilling Effect of Liability for Online Reader Comments European Human Rights Law Review, 2017 (4), pp. 387-393, 2017. @article{Fahy2017b,
title = {The Chilling Effect of Liability for Online Reader Comments}, author = {Fahy, R.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EHRLR_2017_4.pdf}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-08-24}, journal = {European Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {2017}, number = {4}, pages = {387-393}, abstract = {This article assesses how the European Court of Human Rights has responded to the argument that holding online news media liable for reader comments has a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The article demonstrates how the Court first responded by dismissing the argument, and focused on the apparent lack of evidence for any such chilling effect. The article then argues that the Court has moved away from its initial rejection, and now accepts that a potential chilling effect, even without evidence, is integral to deciding whether online news media should be liable for reader comments. Finally, the article argues that this latter view is consistent with the Court’s precedent in other areas of freedom of expression law where a similar chilling effect may also arise.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This article assesses how the European Court of Human Rights has responded to the argument that holding online news media liable for reader comments has a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The article demonstrates how the Court first responded by dismissing the argument, and focused on the apparent lack of evidence for any such chilling effect. The article then argues that the Court has moved away from its initial rejection, and now accepts that a potential chilling effect, even without evidence, is integral to deciding whether online news media should be liable for reader comments. Finally, the article argues that this latter view is consistent with the Court’s precedent in other areas of
freedom of expression law where a similar chilling effect may also arise. |
| Fahy, R.
Annotatie bij Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens 21 februari 2017 (Dosamantes / Spanje) European Human Right Cases, 2017 (7), 2017. @article{Fahy2017b,
title = {Annotatie bij Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens 21 februari 2017 (Dosamantes / Spanje)}, author = {Fahy, R.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EHRC_2017_7.pdf}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-08-24}, journal = {European Human Right Cases}, volume = {2017}, number = {7}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 14 februari 2017 (Mein Kampf) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2017 (28), pp. 4119-4121, 2017. @article{Dommering2017b,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 14 februari 2017 (Mein Kampf)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2017_259.pdf}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-07-18}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, volume = {2017}, number = {28}, pages = {4119-4121}, abstract = {Verspreiding antiquarisch exemplaar Mein Kampf valt wel onder 137e 2e Sr, maar is niet strafbaar omdat de beperking in strijd komt met artikel 10 EVRM.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Verspreiding antiquarisch exemplaar Mein Kampf valt wel onder 137e 2e Sr, maar is niet strafbaar omdat de beperking in strijd komt met artikel 10 EVRM.
|