SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION tent. Requiring filter mechanisms, the Court argued, would also affect lawful content and, thus, violate the users’ right to freedom of expression. In response to a claimant’s report, Facebook had geo-blocked the post in Austria and Germany. In the opinion of the Court, this measure sufficed to fulfill Facebook’s obligations, as the Court has no extraterritorial power and cannot impose its laws outside Germany. Similar cases and jurisprudence trends have also occurred in Latin America, particularly in Brazil and Argentina. The Court of Appeals of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, decided in Lancellotti (2016) that Facebook must remove posts containing false information about the actress Giovanna Lancellotti Roxo, suspend users’ accounts targeting her, and pay damages for failing to protect her dignity. The Court applied consumer protection law to solve the case and found that Facebook’s failure to address the problem of harmful and offensive fake Facebook profiles and communities violated the claimant’s rights. Due to the personal distress, and damage to her professional life, caused by the content, she was considered to be entitled to financial compensation. In Vanucci (2016), a Civil Federal Court in Argentina compelled Twitter to remove defamatory posts against the claimant, an Argentinian model, which violated her dignity. However, the Court also pointed out that this measure cannot be applied indiscriminately to all future content, but only to specific publications the claimant identifies and which, on the basis of a standard of proportionality and reasonableness, are found to violate her dignity. It underlined that Twitter cannot be required to carry out a prior examination of the content disseminated and hosted on the platform due to the amount of content uploaded. When assessing Twitter’s liability for hateful comments posted on its platform, the Court also took into consideration its current efforts against hate speech by developing a joint Code of Conduct with other social media companies. An interesting, and rather unusual, decision was made by the Civil Court of São Paulo, Brazil, in Dória Junior (2017), when it denied the claimant’s request to remove a Facebook event that allegedly violated the peace and defamed the Mayor, João Dória, but ordered Facebook to provide the IP addresses of the users behind the content. The event, which was created to protest a controversial decision issued by the Mayor, and was located close to his house, attracted more than 25,000 people. The Court held that the content was a form of valid criticism towards a public figure, that there was no intention to defame the Mayor personally, and that the fear of disturbance near the claimant’s house did not justify removing details of the event. However, Facebook was ordered to hand over the IP addresses of the users, as the Brazilian Constitution “does not allow anonymity”. The question of the geographical scope of a court’s order was central in the Ramdev decision by the Delhi High Court, India (2019). The claimant, an Indian yoga guru, asked for the global removal of defamatory content from Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter. The platforms argued that they were ready to geo-block content in India, but that the global removal of content could lead to a conflict with laws from other jurisdictions, and, in particular, incentivize the practice of “forum shopping” by claimants who would choose the most restrictive of all possible jurisdictions to bring forwards claims to remove content. The Court undertook an extensive analysis of jurisprudence from other jurisdictions, such as the USA, the EU (referencing Glawischnig-Piesczek, see above), Canada, and Australia, and held that once defamatory content was uploaded from India and was made available globally, access to such content (once ordered by a competent court) should be disabled world-wide and not just restricted to India. In doing so, the Court differentiated between content uploaded from India, which must be removed globally, and content uploaded from outside of India, which must only be non-accessible from India. In February 2020, the Delhi High Court in India, ordered Instagram and search engines to remove anonymous #MeToo allegations of sexual harassment against artist Subodh Gupta. The Court held that such allegations, which were published by an anonymous account (called “Herdsceneand”), “cannot be permitted to be made in the public domain/published without being backed by legal recourse”. Hence it ordered Instagram to take down the posts and Google to remove links to search results containing information on 16