Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Wolfgang Schulz, Christian Ollig, HYBRID SPEECH GOVERNANCE, 14 (2023) JIPITEC None para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T HYBRID SPEECH GOVERNANCE %A Schulz, Wolfgang %A Ollig, Christian %J JIPITEC %D 2023 %V 14 %N 4 %@ 2190-3387 %F schulz2023 %X The normative development of communication rules on online platforms puts traditional notions of rulemaking and rule application in trouble. The overlap, interdependence, and inseparability of private and public communication rules on social media platforms should therefore be analyzed under the lens of a specific category: hybrid speech governance. This perspective can help to find appropriate approaches to contain private power without simply transferring state-centric concepts unchanged to platform operators. This applies to questions of the basis for validity of communication rules, rule of law requirements, and fundamental rights obligations. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) adopts this perspective of hybrid speech governance and thus finds initial legislative answers to the questions raised. Art. 14 DSA is noteworthy in that regard, but it is only the beginning of the story. Academia, practice, and jurisprudence will have to flesh out the DSA’s approaches to hybrid speech governance in detail. In particular, the current parallel debate in the U.S. on the question of the constitutional obligations of social media platforms could benefit from this European approach as a source of inspiration—it does not seem out of the question that the Supreme Court will add a balancing model to the current dichotomy of state action doctrine. Only such a balancing model can do justice to the phenomenon of hybrid speech governance, for platform governance and beyond. %L 340 %K Hybrid Speech Governance %K European Platform Governance %K Digital Services Act %K Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights %K State Action Doctrine %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58597Download
Bibtex
@Article{schulz2023,
author = "Schulz, Wolfgang
and Ollig, Christian",
title = "HYBRID SPEECH GOVERNANCE",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2023",
volume = "14",
number = "4",
keywords = "Hybrid Speech Governance; European Platform Governance; Digital Services Act; Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights; State Action Doctrine",
abstract = "The normative development of communication rules on online platforms puts traditional notions of rulemaking and rule application in trouble. The overlap, interdependence, and inseparability of private and public communication rules on social media platforms should therefore be analyzed under the lens of a specific category: hybrid speech governance. This perspective can help to find appropriate approaches to contain private power without simply transferring state-centric concepts unchanged to platform operators. This applies to questions of the basis for validity of communication rules, rule of law requirements, and fundamental rights obligations. The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) adopts this perspective of hybrid speech governance and thus finds initial legislative answers to the questions raised. Art. 14 DSA is noteworthy in that regard, but it is only the beginning of the story. Academia, practice, and jurisprudence will have to flesh out the DSA's approaches to hybrid speech governance in detail. In particular, the current parallel debate in the U.S. on the question of the constitutional obligations of social media platforms could benefit from this European approach as a source of inspiration---it does not seem out of the question that the Supreme Court will add a balancing model to the current dichotomy of state action doctrine. Only such a balancing model can do justice to the phenomenon of hybrid speech governance, for platform governance and beyond.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58597"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Schulz, Wolfgang AU - Ollig, Christian PY - 2023 DA - 2023// TI - HYBRID SPEECH GOVERNANCE JO - JIPITEC VL - 14 IS - 4 KW - Hybrid Speech Governance KW - European Platform Governance KW - Digital Services Act KW - Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights KW - State Action Doctrine AB - The normative development of communication rules on online platforms puts traditional notions of rulemaking and rule application in trouble. The overlap, interdependence, and inseparability of private and public communication rules on social media platforms should therefore be analyzed under the lens of a specific category: hybrid speech governance. This perspective can help to find appropriate approaches to contain private power without simply transferring state-centric concepts unchanged to platform operators. This applies to questions of the basis for validity of communication rules, rule of law requirements, and fundamental rights obligations. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) adopts this perspective of hybrid speech governance and thus finds initial legislative answers to the questions raised. Art. 14 DSA is noteworthy in that regard, but it is only the beginning of the story. Academia, practice, and jurisprudence will have to flesh out the DSA’s approaches to hybrid speech governance in detail. In particular, the current parallel debate in the U.S. on the question of the constitutional obligations of social media platforms could benefit from this European approach as a source of inspiration—it does not seem out of the question that the Supreme Court will add a balancing model to the current dichotomy of state action doctrine. Only such a balancing model can do justice to the phenomenon of hybrid speech governance, for platform governance and beyond. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58597 ID - schulz2023 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>schulz2023</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2023</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>14</b:Volume> <b:Issue>4</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58597</b:Url> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Schulz</b:Last><b:First>Wolfgang</b:First></b:Person> <b:Person><b:Last>Ollig</b:Last><b:First>Christian</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>HYBRID SPEECH GOVERNANCE</b:Title> <b:Comments>The normative development of communication rules on online platforms puts traditional notions of rulemaking and rule application in trouble. The overlap, interdependence, and inseparability of private and public communication rules on social media platforms should therefore be analyzed under the lens of a specific category: hybrid speech governance. This perspective can help to find appropriate approaches to contain private power without simply transferring state-centric concepts unchanged to platform operators. This applies to questions of the basis for validity of communication rules, rule of law requirements, and fundamental rights obligations. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) adopts this perspective of hybrid speech governance and thus finds initial legislative answers to the questions raised. Art. 14 DSA is noteworthy in that regard, but it is only the beginning of the story. Academia, practice, and jurisprudence will have to flesh out the DSA’s approaches to hybrid speech governance in detail. In particular, the current parallel debate in the U.S. on the question of the constitutional obligations of social media platforms could benefit from this European approach as a source of inspiration—it does not seem out of the question that the Supreme Court will add a balancing model to the current dichotomy of state action doctrine. Only such a balancing model can do justice to the phenomenon of hybrid speech governance, for platform governance and beyond.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Schulz, W Ollig, C TI HYBRID SPEECH GOVERNANCE SO JIPITEC PY 2023 VL 14 IS 4 DE Hybrid Speech Governance; European Platform Governance; Digital Services Act; Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights; State Action Doctrine AB The normative development of communication rules on online platforms puts traditional notions of rulemaking and rule application in trouble. The overlap, interdependence, and inseparability of private and public communication rules on social media platforms should therefore be analyzed under the lens of a specific category: hybrid speech governance. This perspective can help to find appropriate approaches to contain private power without simply transferring state-centric concepts unchanged to platform operators. This applies to questions of the basis for validity of communication rules, rule of law requirements, and fundamental rights obligations. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) adopts this perspective of hybrid speech governance and thus finds initial legislative answers to the questions raised. Art. 14 DSA is noteworthy in that regard, but it is only the beginning of the story. Academia, practice, and jurisprudence will have to flesh out the DSA’s approaches to hybrid speech governance in detail. In particular, the current parallel debate in the U.S. on the question of the constitutional obligations of social media platforms could benefit from this European approach as a source of inspiration—it does not seem out of the question that the Supreme Court will add a balancing model to the current dichotomy of state action doctrine. Only such a balancing model can do justice to the phenomenon of hybrid speech governance, for platform governance and beyond. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>HYBRID SPEECH GOVERNANCE</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Schulz</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Wolfgang</namePart>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Ollig</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Christian</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>The normative development of communication rules on online platforms puts traditional notions of rulemaking and rule application in trouble. The overlap, interdependence, and inseparability of private and public communication rules on social media platforms should therefore be analyzed under the lens of a specific category: hybrid speech governance. This perspective can help to find appropriate approaches to contain private power without simply transferring state-centric concepts unchanged to platform operators. This applies to questions of the basis for validity of communication rules, rule of law requirements, and fundamental rights obligations. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) adopts this perspective of hybrid speech governance and thus finds initial legislative answers to the questions raised. Art. 14 DSA is noteworthy in that regard, but it is only the beginning of the story. Academia, practice, and jurisprudence will have to flesh out the DSA’s approaches to hybrid speech governance in detail. In particular, the current parallel debate in the U.S. on the question of the constitutional obligations of social media platforms could benefit from this European approach as a source of inspiration—it does not seem out of the question that the Supreme Court will add a balancing model to the current dichotomy of state action doctrine. Only such a balancing model can do justice to the phenomenon of hybrid speech governance, for platform governance and beyond.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>Hybrid Speech Governance</topic>
<topic>European Platform Governance</topic>
<topic>Digital Services Act</topic>
<topic>Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights</topic>
<topic>State Action Doctrine</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>14</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>4</number>
</detail>
<date>2023</date>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58597</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58597</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">schulz2023</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 14 (2023) 4 |
|---|---|
| Title |
HYBRID SPEECH GOVERNANCE (eng) |
| Author | Wolfgang Schulz, Christian Ollig |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | The normative development of communication rules on online platforms puts traditional notions of rulemaking and rule application in trouble. The overlap, interdependence, and inseparability of private and public communication rules on social media platforms should therefore be analyzed under the lens of a specific category: hybrid speech governance. This perspective can help to find appropriate approaches to contain private power without simply transferring state-centric concepts unchanged to platform operators. This applies to questions of the basis for validity of communication rules, rule of law requirements, and fundamental rights obligations. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) adopts this perspective of hybrid speech governance and thus finds initial legislative answers to the questions raised. Art. 14 DSA is noteworthy in that regard, but it is only the beginning of the story. Academia, practice, and jurisprudence will have to flesh out the DSA’s approaches to hybrid speech governance in detail. In particular, the current parallel debate in the U.S. on the question of the constitutional obligations of social media platforms could benefit from this European approach as a source of inspiration—it does not seem out of the question that the Supreme Court will add a balancing model to the current dichotomy of state action doctrine. Only such a balancing model can do justice to the phenomenon of hybrid speech governance, for platform governance and beyond. |
| Subject | Hybrid Speech Governance, European Platform Governance, Digital Services Act, Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights, State Action Doctrine |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58597 |
