Previous 3 / 24 Next

Credits Collection directors Lee C. Bollinger Catalina Botero-Marino Author Erik Tuchtfeld*, Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany Design Laura Catalina Ortiz, illustrator Lourdes de Obaldía, layout and graphic designer Special thanks and acknowledgements The Directors, Editors, and Authors of the present collection would like to recognize and express their gratitude to all the people whose efforts and talents made the collection a reality. These publications were only possible thanks to the analysis and selection of cases for the database by a wide number of experts and contributors collaborating with Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. The case briefs presented in this collection reproduce the analysis of the cases published in our database, which was only possible due to their invaluable contribution. Special thanks to Juan Manuel Ospina for reviewing and providing valuable comments on the paper. The views and opinions expressed in this paper reflect only the position of its author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. * Copyright © 2023 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. All rights reserved.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Analysis

Analysis Format: Report

Country

Keywords

Content Moderation
Filtering and Blocking
Intermediary Liability
Public Officials
Publisher

Author: Erik Tuchtfeld, Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany

Source: Global Freedom of Expression

Source URL (legacy): https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GFoE_Content-Moderation.pdf

Description: The state of freedom of expression online is substantially shaped by the moderation of content on dominant social media platforms. Their private community guidelines are the legal framework for discussions in the digital realm. Effectively, they constitute global law applying to billions of individuals, set by a few companies of the Global North. This raises fundamental questions on how to deal with private power. The answer varies substantially, depending on the legal culture: Some, in particular the United States, emphasize the principle of private autonomy, while others view it as an anti-trust problem. This paper examines the accumulation of private corporate power over freedom of speech as a human rights problem. Claimants all around the world have initiated legal actions based on the assumption that a particular act of content moderation—such as the (non-)removal of content, account suspensions or deletions, among others—, violated their human rights. The carefully chosen sample, from over 100 cases surveyed, aims to cover and contextualize the most important legal debates that courts are currently facing on this matter. The jurisprudence presented in this paper is divided into three main sections: Cases against intermediaries, cases against public officials, and cases dealing with the actions taken by states to enforce a particular kind of content moderation on private social media platforms. It also tries to showcase the different pathways taken by judicial bodies when solving these issues.

Related Caselaw

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Feb 27, 2024

Date: Feb 27, 2024

Primary Documents

GFoE_Content-Moderation (1).pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Primary Documents

Notifications