Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Nicolo Zingales, Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden?, 5 (2014) JIPITEC 155 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden? %A Zingales, Nicolo %J JIPITEC %D 2014 %V 5 %N 3 %@ 2190-3387 %F zingales2014 %X On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users’ option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court’s view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension. %L 340 %K Internet intermediary liability %K adjudication %K anonymity on the Internet %K defamation %K technological rights %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-40917 %P 155-171Download
Bibtex
@Article{zingales2014,
author = "Zingales, Nicolo",
title = "Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden?",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2014",
volume = "5",
number = "3",
pages = "155--171",
keywords = "Internet intermediary liability; adjudication; anonymity on the Internet; defamation; technological rights",
abstract = "On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users' option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court's view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-40917"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Zingales, Nicolo PY - 2014 DA - 2014// TI - Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden? JO - JIPITEC SP - 155 EP - 171 VL - 5 IS - 3 KW - Internet intermediary liability KW - adjudication KW - anonymity on the Internet KW - defamation KW - technological rights AB - On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users’ option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court’s view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-40917 ID - zingales2014 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>zingales2014</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2014</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>5</b:Volume> <b:Issue>3</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-40917</b:Url> <b:Pages>155-171</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Zingales</b:Last><b:First>Nicolo</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden?</b:Title> <b:Comments>On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users’ option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court’s view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Zingales, N TI Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden? SO JIPITEC PY 2014 BP 155 EP 171 VL 5 IS 3 DE Internet intermediary liability; adjudication; anonymity on the Internet; defamation; technological rights AB On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users’ option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court’s view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden?</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Zingales</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Nicolo</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users’ option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court’s view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>Internet intermediary liability</topic>
<topic>adjudication</topic>
<topic>anonymity on the Internet</topic>
<topic>defamation</topic>
<topic>technological rights</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>5</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<date>2014</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>155</start>
<end>171</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-40917</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-40917</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">zingales2014</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 5 (2014) 3 |
|---|---|
| Title |
Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden? (eng) |
| Author | Nicolo Zingales |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users’ option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court’s view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension. |
| Subject | Internet intermediary liability, adjudication, anonymity on the Internet, defamation, technological rights |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-40917 |
