THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERNET ACCESS AS A MEANS OF RECEIVING AND IMPARTING INFORMATION AND IDEAS

Gergely Gosztonyi
{"title":"THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERNET ACCESS AS A MEANS OF RECEIVING AND IMPARTING INFORMATION AND IDEAS","authors":"Gergely Gosztonyi","doi":"10.13165/j.icj.2020.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"The Internet has now become one of the principal means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas.\" (European Court of Human Rights, cited in Cengiz and Others v. Turkey). Are these rights merely window dressing for some countries? Perhaps the most important question is what lies behind this so-called Potemkin village that is very much in evidence? [1] For example, in 2019 there were at least 213 documented internet shutdowns around the world, with the number of countries experiencing shutdowns increasing from 25 in 2018, to 33 in 2019 – or 17% of the countries in the world today. In this respect, Russian and Turkey are standouts as landmark cases that have come before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Here, the fundamental issue is blocking access to the Internet, regardless of the methods used by each State. This paper examines the use of shutdowns in Russia and Turkey with a view to understanding how these States in particular are responding to the propagation of fake news, hate speech, content that promotes violence, and how to balance drastic measures (shutdowns) with the need to ensure public safety and/or national security and freedom of expression.","PeriodicalId":32140,"journal":{"name":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13165/j.icj.2020.12.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

"The Internet has now become one of the principal means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas." (European Court of Human Rights, cited in Cengiz and Others v. Turkey). Are these rights merely window dressing for some countries? Perhaps the most important question is what lies behind this so-called Potemkin village that is very much in evidence? [1] For example, in 2019 there were at least 213 documented internet shutdowns around the world, with the number of countries experiencing shutdowns increasing from 25 in 2018, to 33 in 2019 – or 17% of the countries in the world today. In this respect, Russian and Turkey are standouts as landmark cases that have come before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Here, the fundamental issue is blocking access to the Internet, regardless of the methods used by each State. This paper examines the use of shutdowns in Russia and Turkey with a view to understanding how these States in particular are responding to the propagation of fake news, hate speech, content that promotes violence, and how to balance drastic measures (shutdowns) with the need to ensure public safety and/or national security and freedom of expression.
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
欧洲人权法院:互联网接入作为接受和传递信息和思想的手段
“互联网现在已成为个人行使接受和传播信息和思想自由权利的主要手段之一。”(欧洲人权法院,Cengiz等人诉土耳其案中引用)。对某些国家来说,这些权利仅仅是一种粉饰吗?也许最重要的问题是,这个所谓的波将金村背后隐藏着什么?[1] 例如,2019年,全球至少有213个记录在案的互联网关闭,经历关闭的国家数量从2018年的25个增加到2019年的33个,占当今世界国家的17%。在这方面,俄罗斯和土耳其是欧洲人权法院审理的具有里程碑意义的案件。在这方面,根本问题是,无论每个国家使用何种方法,都要阻止接入互联网。本文研究了俄罗斯和土耳其使用关闭的情况,以了解这些国家尤其是如何应对假新闻、仇恨言论、宣扬暴力的内容的传播,以及如何在严厉措施(关闭)与确保公共安全和/或国家安全及言论自由的需要之间取得平衡。
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DOMESTIC REFORMS TOWARDS STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW, IN GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, AND UKRAINE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: WESTERN AND ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES SHOULD THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DEVELOP A POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE CONDITIONS FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF NATURAL PERSONS: WHICH BALTIC STATE IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FOR BANKRUPTCY? WHAT CAN FRANCE LEARN FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC’S APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF WEARING (ISLAMIC) RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
×
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