Cyber-speech and social networking

Obligatory reading:
Andrew Murray (2019) Information Technology Law, pp 87-158 (Part II, Chapters 5 and 6)
Reader:
Reader W3
Prematuredeploymetisad ut usiess isusiess

 Adaptation and mitigation is the wayto solve stuff, and good planning(kinda but the last one ever work)

Task 1 – Disruptive innovation

Find information and present in class some of the newest technologies that are developed. List the areas of life and
the fields of law that these technologies are likely to effect and briefly explain why.
 5G network (related to internet of things) : coects all smart devices creating new field of legal issues
o Penetrates all, eg: walls
o Very fast so would be good for online stuff (robots for surgery)
o Norway already has this for administration for some cities: Higher unemployment rate, issue in
society
o Problem with privacy: violation of non-personal data: detect the exact location creating a map,
protection of public spaces(mass surveillance issue)
 Social media: it changed a lot on how we expect info to be delivered
 AI:

Task 2 – The interview[*]

Olaf is a young and very enthusiast freelance journalist. He writes articles and conducts interviews for several online
media outlets in Germany. Recently he interviewed a group of radical youths from a xenophobic group, the
Darkhats. The interview, which was broadcasted online, featured several clips of Darkhats’ members making
derogative statements about minority racial groups and immigrants. Although the specific remarks made by the
Darkhats, read out of context, were highly offensive, Olaf presented them objectively pursuing the aim of informing
the public on their viewpoints. Despite this, in no time Olaf and the head of online media outlet news section which
broadcasted the interview were called before the national court which convicted them of aiding and abetting the
Darkhats in publishing racist statements and were ordered to pay a fine.
Olaf is wandering if his punishment is in compliance with his right to freedom of expression as established by
Article 10 ECHR. What is your opinion on this issue?
Furthermore, having failed in all the instances at national courts he wanders if it is worthwhile to bring the case
before the European Court of Human Rights. Please give your opinion based on the case law we have studied in our
course.
Wg 4:
 IRAC
o Issue: Would the punishment violate his freedom of expression?
o Legal framework: jvDenmark (it applies because they are similar: journalist interviewing extremist
group, aim is to spread information for public good), article 10 echr and para 2,
o How do we apply them:
o JvDenmark: violation or article 10 in para
 34: inform the public
 35: public watchdog
 36: not racist broadcasting
 37: punishment not neccessery in democratic society
o Why journalism: censorship reasons, so the news can give the truth
o Olaf showed work on media otlets, jersol showed info on radio: on
internt a lot more people can access stuff
o Cross boder scenerios: ist amendment and echr
o What about Danish law?:  ournalist has duties and responsibilities regrading what he distributes
 o Law was ok but punishment went too far
o Conclusion: There was violation of his freedom of expression, yes its worth itto go to court.

Wg 12:
Journalist punished for harmful content(legal dispute)
 Did olaf make racist remark?
o nO, but he distributed content
o Art 10 (otasolute we eed alacigact) freedom of expression: in us u cannot limit it based on the 1 st
amendment (reio v alloy: all internet coversation, but luisianavgarrison: 1 st amendment protects
the distribution of truth)
 Big deal in us about mass propaganda and deep fakes
 Art10 para2. Ot asolute according to para 2 there are puliciterests to allowiterferece with
article 10withlegitimate reasons
 Protect reputation and rights of others(justified interference with article 10)

Court checks: was there interference with the right? Interference justified? Was it in accordace withlaw (privacy
questios, expression qs)?(jeorsol v denmark) did measure persue legitimate aim?(iterferecewithlawwaslegit)
wasit prpoposrtioal and necessary in democratic society?

Media is a public watchdog: right to give and get information

Was the interview edited? Stated they were extremists etc… but not the content of what they said (he could
have done :not have edited content that was shocking): is disturbing content necessary for the info?--. But there
is a right to distribute information as it is
 Danish law? Journalist can be punished? Only if there is legitimate aim for the protection of
democratic society
 Olaf: freelancer (not a real journalist, what is actual journalism?)
Exam :general rule(can be limitedor ot) ad the test aswell (actual law is not given ad actual aimeither so we dont go
till that), case law and go back to scenerio to answer scenerio question

Task 3 – Pierre the swimmer

Pierre is the 8th in the line of succession of a small Principality situated in Europe. He does not cover any official
functions in the Principality, though, being the preferred nephew of the reigning monarch, he is often seen by his side
in different public events – thus his life is not completely free from paparazzi.
Given his relationship with an Italian girl, his pictures are a hit especially in online Italian gossip magazines. One
magazine was featuring Pierre during his summer holidays at the sea. The short article was referring to Pierre’s poor
swimming abilities illustrating it with various pictures. In the pictures Pierre was caught in funny positions in the
water and the funny faces he was making were, according to the article, showing his uneasiness. The pictures soon
became viral and a lot of internet meme were spread in social networks making Pierre ridiculous in the eyes of the
entire world. To give an end to all the unpleasant comments, Pierre started a case in Italy against the magazine for
unlawful interference with his private life, but the national court did not support his claims. Unhappy with the
decision, he turns to you for advice on the possibilities he might have to win such a battle in case he goes all the way
up to the European Court of Human Rights.

Wg 4
 Legal dispute: Article 10 vs article 8--. What is the conflict based on?: pierre wants to take off pics,
journalists took pics in secret
o Pierre is a public figure
o Von hannover: I contribute to debate of public interest?, II: distinction between private vs public
person: 4 distinctions
 General interest
 Para 109 to 113
o Similarities between pierre and von hannover:
  Public figure
 Monarch related
 Ambushed by paparazzi in private life
o Differences:
 No general interest in pierre’s case
 Apply 109 to 113:
o General interest: no
o Public or priv manner?: priv
o Conduct before publication: only collab in public
o Represented in press: poorl in disgraceful manner
o Way pics taken: no consent

Wg 12
Freedom of expression vs article 8:state has obligation to securead respect privatelife, secure of arbitrary interference
- Royal family von hannover I and II
o I: interference with private life because: criterium of special isolation aka seclduded space
(aspulicfigure seen asan idol and role model there isiterests I your life so if you act I pulicu should
have a moral and publicly acceptale ehaviour)
 Violation of private right as this was ipriate spaces
o II: served geeral pulic iterests : state of health of the monarch, poor health
 Eg presidet of sudan, if people ewof health situation people would emore prepared,icasehe
is icapael he isicapale to do job: helth geeral puliciterest? Source of lot of gossip aswell
 People tend to focus on the negatives
 There is difference in expectation of privacy for public figures and private
figures: what ca e know of public figures?:when we talk of fraud defamation,
political issues are important but marital and health of monarch are out of general
public interest
 Rights evolve with evolvement of society:so far look at general interest, coduct
of perso, way pulished ad wayrepreseted, way pics were taken
What aout pierre?: right will e violated
- No general interest

Task 4 – Remember Pierre?

The internet meme making fun of Pierre’s poor swimming qualities were soon spread all over the internet. If
someone was to type his name in any search engine, the meme were the first results appearing. Considering it
detrimental to his personality, Pierre filled the form asking Google to remove the data from Google search returns.
Contacted by the lawyer of Pierre, Google was quick in removing the data by all its search engine extensions in the
EU. However, if someone outside the EU was searching about Pierre the meme were still the first results returned by
the search engine. When asked to perform, Google replied that a worldwide de-referencing would conflict with the
protection of other rights, as for example the right to freedom of information, which are not having a uniform
protection worldwide. Since Pierre already knows your capabilities and he was really appreciating your feedback in
the previous case he turns again to you for advice.

Wg 4
 Legal issue: can pierre invoke the right to be forgotten? (And freedom of expression and there are different
standards for right to e forgotten)
 Google v Spain, 1st amendment, google v sienel speaks about the scope of delisting so u can only delete info
in eu borders because if it
o Para 72: EU law does not currently require that the de-referencing granted concern all versions of
the search engine in question, it also does not prohibit such a practice
 Makes hard deleting data, aka putting stuff to archives: Extra steps and conflicting
values enforcement problems and legal problem on othr side
Wg 12
Right to invoke: to be forgotten, googlevspain: not codified yet
- Decision: u can be forgotten but never erased
- Para 88 googlevspain: remove content published y 3 rd parties from search engine, can be in the webpage ut
u wont really find that page
o Even on pages were its lawful: court webpage

Google v sienil:scope of delisting

- Globally delete iformation: google said that wouldegloal censorship
o Global censorship: eg coutry with repressiveregime can useit
o But google does censor stuff:eg butterfly project (censor stuff not in line with government)
o Its up to atioals to decide on removing stuff globally? Etter guarantee tha eu law
 Atioalcourt ca ask stuff to be removedgloally, but provider caot takeextra steps
(eg if vpn ad proxy server isused)
- Why doescourt ot want gloal erasure?: the right is interpreted differently per state

Pierre: could eu wide erase the stuff and be forgotten or

- Eu ot requireot let delisting it isup to atioal court
- Paragraph 72:atioal court can order global delisting

(Get summary, ow the prolems, argumets)

Task 5 – Compare and discuss

Nine days after delivering its judgment in Google v CNIL (Case C-507/17), the Court of Justice of the European
Union ruled in Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek (Case C-18/18) that in the context of take-down of online defamatory
content, Member States can decide themselves whether it is appropriate to give worldwide effect to injunctions
stipulating the take down of illegal defamatory content from host provider platforms.

Read both judgments and express your opinion if these judgments are:

a. in compliance with each other;

b. conflicting with each other; or

c. not related.

Please justify your answer. A more nuanced approach to any of the above options is of course accepted.

Wg 4

Eva and assignmemht:

 similar: global erasure, public figure

 difference: defamation vs other is about regulation
o legal basises used for the 2 cases: ecommerce directive
 para 40: General data protection act (associated with human rights)
 article 15 and 14 ecommerce directive (electronic commerce directive) contract and tort
 Eva: removed defamatory content: when damaging public image of someone, in eva
declared unlawful content
  Who decides what laws to examine?
o In preliminary ruling the las have been established, not for court to
decide

 In google: not unlawful, it was private info that is why gdpr applied
 Who decides what laws to examine?
o In preliminary ruling the las have been established, not for court to
decide
 Google v cnil: grand chamber: about 15 judges
 Eva: 3rd chamber: less judges

There are different sets of obligations, reasoning is different but the content is kinda the same

Wg 12

Eva case:defamatory

 politicion, called corrupt online on a social media and she saw it as defamatory
- wated info to e removed and similar I futurealso I everything everywhere
- legal asis: ecommerce directive instead of human rights case
o ecommerce:14 ad 15: o regulation to track user behavior u tot charged for user geeratedcotet of which they
could not have known of
o para 45 and 46: shift responsibility to at court ad what should scope be?

In google v cail:alace the press another: u tot defamation case

- what should the scope be?