8 MAGYAR TARTALOMSZOLGÁLTATÓK EGYESÜLETE AND INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The applicants 32. At the outset, the applicants drew attention to the EU framework governing intermediary liability and the relevant international standards developed by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression as well as the Council of Europe expressed notably by the Committee of Ministers. 33. Moreover, in their view, it was immaterial which precise domestic legal provisions had served as the basis of the restriction complained of. The State interference resulted in the applicants’ objective liability for the comments made on their websites. 34. They disputed the rulings of the Hungarian courts according to which the comments had violated others’ right to good reputation. Those comments had appeared in a public debate on a matter of common interest. The debate concerned the unethical conduct of a service-provider, where there should be little restriction on expressions, even disturbing ones, especially when it comes to value judgments as in the present case. In any case, the comments could not be equated with edited readers’ letters. 35. The applicants also contended that the lawfulness of the interference leaves a lot to be desired because the domestic legal practice was divergent in such cases. 36. As to the Government’s suggestion that liability for comments could be avoided either by pre-moderation or by disabling commenting altogether, the applicants argued that both solutions would work against the very essence of free expression on the Internet by having an undue chilling effect. 37. The applicants furthermore contended that imposing strict liability on online publications for all third-party contents would amount to a duty imposed on websites to prevent the posting, for any period of time, of any user-generated content that might be defamatory. Such a duty would place an undue burden on many protagonists of the Internet scene and produce significant censoring, or even complete elimination, of user comments to steer clear of legal trouble – whereas those comments tend to enrich and democratise online debates. 38. It was noteworthy that the law of the European Union and some national jurisdictions contained less restrictive rules for the protection of rights of others and to manage liability of hosting service providers. Indeed, the application of the “notice and take down” rule was the adequate way of enforcing the protection of reputation of others. 39. The stance of the Hungarian authorities had resulted in disproportionate restriction on the applicants’ freedom of expression in that