CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

- Colección
- Registrarse

ordenado por

Fecha de creación

99 relaciones, 76 Entidades

10 de 25 nodos

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

Uwazi es desarrollado por
CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law
Colección
Acceder

Información
99relaciones

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Analysis

Consejos de búsqueda

Buscar texto

Type something in the search box to get some results.

Tabla de Contenidos

Sin Tabla de Contenidos

Sin descripción de Tabla de Contenidos

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Analysis

Analysis Format: Report

Country

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Brazil
Estonia
France
Germany
India
Israel
Italy
Malaysia
Netherlands
Nigeria
Pakistan
Russia
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

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 Name: Global Freedom of Expression

Source URL: 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

Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. State Attorney’s Office
Administrator of Bayern Souverän v. Facebook Ireland Ltd.
AGBA JALINGO
Anas M. v. Facebook Ireland Limited
Attorney General of Malaysia v. Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd
Blume v. Twitter
Campbell v. Reisch
CasaPound v. Facebook
CG v. Facebook Ireland Ltd
Cox. v. Twitter
Davison v. Randall
Davison v. Rose
Delfi AS v. Estonia
Der Dritte Weg v. Facebook Ireland Ltd.
Die Grünen v. Facebook Ireland Limited
Dória Junior v. Facebook do Brasil
Ein Prozent v. Facebook Ireland Ltd.
FAN v. Facebook
Forza Nuova v. Facebook Ireland NTD
Franco Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.
Freedom Watch v. Google
Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Limited
Gonzalez v. Google (SCOTUS 2023)
Gupta v. Herdsceneand
J20 v. Facebook Ireland Ltd
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald J. Trump
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (Rehearing)
Künast v. Facebook
Lancellotti v. Facebook
Mezey v. Twitter Inc.
Muthukumar v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Ors.
NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Florida
Netchoice v. Paxton
Nunes v. Twitter, Inc.
Parler v. Amazon Web Services
Prager University v. Google LLC
Ramdev v. Facebook
Roskomnadzor v. Google LLC
Roskomnadzor v. Meta
Roskomnadzor v. Telegram
Roskomnadzor v. Twitter
Sanchez v. France (GC)
Tamiz v. United Kingdom
The Case of Discriminatory Content Against Immigrants
The Case of the Brazil Fake News Inquiry
The Case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and Others
The Case on Facebook’s Terms of Service
The Cologne Case on Facebook’s Terms of Service
Themel v. Facebook Ireland
Twitter Inc. v. The Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco
Twitter v. Taamneh
Twitter, Inc. v. Barr
UEJF v. Twitter
User v. Facebook Ireland, Inc.
Van Haga v. YouTube
Vannucci v. Twitter INC
Voller v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd, and Australian News Channel Pty Ltd
Williby v. Zuckerberg et al.
Zulfiqar Ali v. Pakistan

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 27 feb 2024

Date: 27 feb 2024

Documentos primarios

GFoE_Content-Moderation (1).pdf
English
Descargar Ver

Sin referencias

References are parts of this document related with other documents and entities.

Country18
- Country18
No existe etiqueta23
- Case Law23
Related Case Law58
- Case Law58

Crear Referencia

Seleccionar tipo de relación

Original Law Cited
Related Translation
Related Media Source
Country
Related Law
Related Regulations
Related Secondary Law
Related Amendments
Related Draft Amendments
Related Case Law
Related Analysis

Consejos de búsqueda

Añadir entidades / documentos

Consejos de búsqueda

Notificaciones

Estás al día

La actividad nueva se mostrará aquí.