Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Patrick Leerssen, Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU, 6 (2015) JIPITEC 99 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU %A Leerssen, Patrick %J JIPITEC %D 2015 %V 6 %N 2 %@ 2190-3387 %F leerssen2015 %X This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles %L 340 %K Banning %K Private Censorship %K Removal Orders %K Social Media %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-42717 %P 99-119Download
Bibtex
@Article{leerssen2015,
author = "Leerssen, Patrick",
title = "Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2015",
volume = "6",
number = "2",
pages = "99--119",
keywords = "Banning; Private Censorship; Removal Orders; Social Media",
abstract = "This article examines social network users' legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this `fair balance' test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-42717"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Leerssen, Patrick PY - 2015 DA - 2015// TI - Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU JO - JIPITEC SP - 99 EP - 119 VL - 6 IS - 2 KW - Banning KW - Private Censorship KW - Removal Orders KW - Social Media AB - This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-42717 ID - leerssen2015 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>leerssen2015</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2015</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>6</b:Volume> <b:Issue>2</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-42717</b:Url> <b:Pages>99-119</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Leerssen</b:Last><b:First>Patrick</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU</b:Title> <b:Comments>This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Leerssen, P TI Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU SO JIPITEC PY 2015 BP 99 EP 119 VL 6 IS 2 DE Banning; Private Censorship; Removal Orders; Social Media AB This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Leerssen</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Patrick</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>Banning</topic>
<topic>Private Censorship</topic>
<topic>Removal Orders</topic>
<topic>Social Media</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>6</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<date>2015</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>99</start>
<end>119</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-42717</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-42717</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">leerssen2015</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | 6 (2015) 2 |
|---|---|
| Title |
Cut Out By The Middle Man: The Free Speech Implications Of Social Network Blocking and Banning In The EU (eng) |
| Author | Patrick Leerssen |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | This article examines social network users’ legal defences against content removal under the EU and ECHR frameworks, and their implications for the effective exercise of free speech online. A review of the Terms of Use and content moderation policies of two major social network services, Facebook and Twitter, shows that end users are unlikely to have a contractual defence against content removal. Under the EU and ECHR frameworks, they may demand the observance of free speech principles in state-issued blocking orders and their implementation by intermediaries, but cannot invoke this ‘fair balance’ test against the voluntary removal decisions by the social network service. Drawing on practical examples, this article explores the threat to free speech created by this lack of accountability: Firstly, a shift from legislative regulation and formal injunctions to public-private collaborations allows state authorities to influence these ostensibly voluntary policies, thereby circumventing constitutional safeguards. Secondly, even absent state interference, the commercial incentives of social media cannot be guaranteed to coincide with democratic ideals. In light of the blurring of public and private functions in the regulation of social media expression, this article calls for the increased accountability of the social media services towards end users regarding the observance of free speech principles |
| Subject | Banning, Private Censorship, Removal Orders, Social Media |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-42717 |
