Lies, liability, and lawful content: Critiquing the approaches to online disinformation in the EU

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Common Market Law Review Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.54648/cola2023094
Ethan Shattock
{"title":"Lies, liability, and lawful content: Critiquing the approaches to online disinformation in the EU","authors":"Ethan Shattock","doi":"10.54648/cola2023094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers legislative approaches to online disinformation in the European Union (EU) and identifies how shifting approaches could undermine applicable fundamental rights standards in the disinformation field. The problem of online disinformation – and its disruptive effects on European elections – has attracted extensive scrutiny at the EU institutional and Member State level. Since 2018, Union institutions have pursued self-regulatory measures for disinformation and have explicitly refrained from including this content in the EU’s intermediary liability regime. A key justification for this approach has been that disinformation generally includes lawful content and that restrictions on lawful content may undermine the right to freedom of expression. As this article maps, however, standards are shifting in the EU legal context regarding online intermediary responsibilities to limit the dissemination of content containing disinformation. This is not only evidenced by a diverse set of Member State laws designed to address misleading electoral communications, but also in several provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA) which have potential applications in this area. Drawing from relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), this article provides a distillation of key European standards regarding how EU and Member State laws to combat disinformation must ensure compatibility with the right to freedom of expression. This article further considers whether – in light of these standards – divergent legislative approaches to online disinformation in the EU could undermine fundamental rights.\nDisinformation, Freedom of Expression, CFR, Free Elections, Democracy","PeriodicalId":47406,"journal":{"name":"Common Market Law Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common Market Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/cola2023094","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article considers legislative approaches to online disinformation in the European Union (EU) and identifies how shifting approaches could undermine applicable fundamental rights standards in the disinformation field. The problem of online disinformation – and its disruptive effects on European elections – has attracted extensive scrutiny at the EU institutional and Member State level. Since 2018, Union institutions have pursued self-regulatory measures for disinformation and have explicitly refrained from including this content in the EU’s intermediary liability regime. A key justification for this approach has been that disinformation generally includes lawful content and that restrictions on lawful content may undermine the right to freedom of expression. As this article maps, however, standards are shifting in the EU legal context regarding online intermediary responsibilities to limit the dissemination of content containing disinformation. This is not only evidenced by a diverse set of Member State laws designed to address misleading electoral communications, but also in several provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA) which have potential applications in this area. Drawing from relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), this article provides a distillation of key European standards regarding how EU and Member State laws to combat disinformation must ensure compatibility with the right to freedom of expression. This article further considers whether – in light of these standards – divergent legislative approaches to online disinformation in the EU could undermine fundamental rights. Disinformation, Freedom of Expression, CFR, Free Elections, Democracy
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谎言、责任和合法内容:批评欧盟处理网络虚假信息的方法
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
30.40%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: The Common Market Law Review has provided a forum for the keenest legal minds in the fields for more than 40 years. Because of the international composition of its Editorial Board, and in view of the fact that it is able to attract contributions from all over Europe, and from the United States, the Review is able to adopt a unique approach to capitilize Community issues. Each issue contains articles dealing with matters of current interest; the authoritative treatment given to each topic ensures lasting juridical value. This pre-eminent journal brings you detailed, in-depth examination of the most pressing and far-reaching issues on Community Law.
期刊最新文献
Fostering in absentia proceedings when the individual absconds: Criminal proceedings against IR Central banks and inequality Book Review: Judicial Review of Administration in Europe: Procedural Fairness and Propriety, by Giacinto della Cananea and Mauro Bussani. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021) National constitutional identity as a tool for protecting the autonomy of the EU legal order: Costello v. The Government of Ireland Book Review: The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the European Union: The Impact on Law and Governance, by Carmine Conte. (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2022)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1