Abstract
This article examines questions relating to the appropriate role of digital intermediaries in regulating online terrorist-related content and the extent to which proponents of human rights should be concerned with the free speech implications of intermediary liability, through a comparative analysis of recent developments in Europe and the United States. While Europe is contemplating introducing compulsory frameworks to regulate intermediaries, the United States is continuing to apply existing frameworks that incorporate traditional notions of harm and causation and immunise intermediaries for the expression of third party users. Ultimately, this examination leads to the conclusion that compulsory regulation of intermediaries for online terrorist-related speech creates significant dangers to the exercise of free speech, the effects of which ripple far beyond the terrestrial borders of those jurisdictions engaging in such regulation.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 13-46 |
Number of pages | 34 |
Journal | Journal of Media Law |
Volume | 12 |
Issue number | 1 |
Early online date | 18 May 2020 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 18 May 2020 |
Event | The Cambridge International Law Journal 8th Annual Cambridge International Law Conference - University of Cambridge, Cambridge , United Kingdom Duration: 20 Mar 2019 → 21 Mar 2019 https://sms.cam.ac.uk/collection/2948060 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Acknowledgement:
The author would like to thank Gavin Phillipson and Eleni Frantziou for their extremely helpful feedback, and the editors and anonymous reviewer for their detailed comments on earlier drafts.
Keywords
- free
- online
- regulation
- speech