University:
University College London
Course:
LAWS0014 | European Union Law
Academic year:

2024
Views:

120

Pages:

3
Author:

Nam B.

Is there a 'Baby Bear' approach to Controlling Internet Content? Presented by: Gavin Sutter, Director Technology Media & Telecoms Law Institute, Centre for Commercial Law Studies Unacceptable Content & The Limits of Free Speech - The nature of "unacceptable content" • Intellectual property infringement, defamation, hate speech, glorification of terrorism, obscene material, child pornography, political material critical of the state, holocaust denial... • The cyberspace fallacy • Not a problem of regulation, but enforcement  Partial solution for civil liability, but even then enforcement remains problematic Who To Regulate? - - At source • Technical problems - identification • Practical problems – conflict of laws and extradition At point of receipt • (e.g. "Possession of extreme pornography") • Going after hydra heads, not the body The Online Publishing Mode - Publishers and secondary publishers - Regulating the Service Provider • As a secondary publisher of "unacceptable content" Identifiable • In a position to control content they make available (retrospective control) • Intermediary as an 'agent' of the state (direct or indirect)  Efficiency vs fairness? (Economic arguments & US CDA) Which Bear's approach is 'just right'? - Father Bear - Hard Touch: • Direct or indirect state involvement with ISP  E.g. People's Republic of China o ISPs state-licensed o Required to block/filter/ otherwise censure material considered unacceptable, whether from within or without • Could it happen here?  Clean feed system & Internet Watch Foundation - who decides what is unacceptable?  Online Harms – including *lawful& speech? - Mother Bear: Soft Touch • US Communications Decency Act 1996  Section 230  Historical rationale  Effect of Reno v ACLU  Zeran v AOL and following cases • Freedom of speech argument • Commercial arguments (differing approaches USA/UK to "commercial speech) Awareness-Based Liability: Middle Way? - Is this the just right option? - Electronic Commerce Directive 2002 • A sliding scale of potential liability against potential for control of material, and awareness • Intermediary obligations versus 'a get out of jail free' card - BUT - Problem of accountability... • ISP often forced to decide whether material is unlawful when notified – threat to expression? - Commercial issues • Will additional regulation stunt business development? "Oh Brave New World..." - Shifting ISP model... • Should Facebook face more responsibility than Amazon Web Services? Is there a Baby Bear? - Difficult decisions must be made... - ...and Article 10(1) cannot be read absent • - Article 10(2) .... A line still needs to be drawn • Article 10(2) and "proscribed by law"  How to interpret?  Reasonable to require a service provider to limit "legal" material?  The public/private