Skip to main content

Home/ Duty of care + Standards _ CU/ Group items tagged convention

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Carsten Ullrich

Council of Europe - ETS No. 185 - Convention on Cybercrime - 0 views

conventions.coe.int/...185.htm

ETS council europe convention cybercrime human rights collaboration standards surveillance

shared by Carsten Ullrich on 17 Oct 17 - No Cached
  • Recognising the need for co-operation between States and private industry
  • need to protect legitimate interests
  • roper balance between the interests of law enforcement and respect for fundamental human rights
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and the rights concerning the respect for privacy;
  • United Nations, the OECD
  • European Union and the G8
  • establish as criminal offences under its domestic law,
  • producing child pornography
  •   offering or making available child pornography
  • distributing or transmitting
  • procuring
  • possessing
  • expeditious preservation of traffic data is available
  • expeditious disclosure to the Party’s competent authority,
Carsten Ullrich

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights - 0 views

hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng

hate speech intermediary liability duty of care human rights filtering europe

shared by Carsten Ullrich on 11 Jan 18 - No Cached
  • Thus, the Court considers that the applicant company was in a position to assess the risks related to its activities and that it must have been able to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences which these could entail. It therefore concludes that the interference in issue was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention.
  • The Court has found that persons carrying on a professional activity, who are used to having to proceed with a high degree of caution when pursuing their occupation, can on this account be expected to take special care in assessing the risks that such activity entails
  • Thus, the Court notes that the applicant company cannot be said to have wholly neglected its duty to avoid causing harm to third parties. Nevertheless, and more importantly, the automatic word-based filter used by the applicant company failed to filter out odious hate speech and speech inciting violence posted by readers and thus limited its ability to expeditiously remove the offending comments
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Against that background, the Chamber considered that the applicant company had been in a position to assess the risks related to its activities and that it must have been able to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences which these could entail.
  • Lastly, the Court observes that the applicant company has argued (see paragraph 78 above) that the Court should have due regard to the notice-and-take-down system that it had introduced. If accompanied by effective procedures allowing for rapid response, this system can in the Court’s view function in many cases as an appropriate tool for balancing the rights and interests of all those involved. However, in cases such as the present one, where third-party user comments are in the form of hate speech and direct threats to the physical integrity of individuals, as understood in the Court’s case-law (see paragraph 136 above), the Court considers, as stated above (see paragraph 153), that the rights and interests of others and of society as a whole may entitle Contracting States to impose liability on Internet news portals, without contravening Article 10 of the Convention, if they fail to take measures to remove clearly unlawful comments without delay, even without notice from the alleged victim or from third parties.
Carsten Ullrich

Tech companies can distinguish between free speech and hate speech if they want to - Da... - 0 views

inforrm.wordpress.com/...h-if-they-want-to-david-glance

intermediary freedom of speech censorship facebook filtering

shared by Carsten Ullrich on 17 Oct 17 - Cached
  • Facebook has come under recent criticism for censoring LGBTQ people’s posts because they contained words that Facebook deem offensive. At the same time, the LGBTQ community are one of the groups frequently targetted with hate speech on the platform. If users seem to “want their cake and eat it too”, the tech companies are similarly conflicted.
  • At the same time, the laws of many countries like Germany, and other international conventions, explicitly limit these freedoms when it comes to hate speech.
  • It would not be impossible for tech companies to form clear guidelines within their own platforms about what was and wasn’t permissable. For the mainly US companies, this would mean that they would have to be increasingly aware of the differences between US law and culture and those of other countries.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page