EU Court Rules In Favour of EU-wide Censorship

[GerryT]

The story that the EU will allow member states to force censorship. That sort of tripe. It's about defamatory material and this is obviously a great thing. Something posted that's an obvious lie - defamatory, should be removed NOT from just the country you take the case but from all Facebook sites. Seriously you have a problem with that ??

And when it's not obvious in one country, but judged to be defamatory in another?

Huh ?

We could use that everywhere, someone convicted of murder in the UK could go to say Croatia and have them rule he's not. Hey presto he's not guilty. That's your argument.

It's simple, if someone wins a deformation case then social media will have to remove the material, everywhere. Please explain how the nasty bold EU is wrong here.

[Scott777]

Highest EU court allows individual member states to force total censorship on social media.

That isn't what the ruling allows. It doesn't allow individual member states to force "total censorship", it is about compelling social media platforms to remove material on a global level which has been found (after due legal process) to be defamatory. Calling this "total censorship" is just outrageously hyperbolic.



Social media has exploded in popularity over the past ten years and has opened a floodgate to a whole new world of legal considerations. Lawmakers have simply struggled to keep up with this juggernaut because technology and social media move so quickly, while law moves slowly.



The effect of social media is that it provides a whole new platform for every Tom Dick & Harry to effectively "publish" whatever they want online, which can be viewed across an entire country or indeed the entire world. This was a level of reach which until quite recently in human history was confined to the media — which is subject to rules and regulation — but now extends to the Everyday Man who can fire anything up online to be viewed globally.



So the question is, if we live in this new world where I now have the power to 'publish' online whatever comes to my mind about Jim across the road (which could potentially be viewed all over the world), then where is Jim's protection if I am defaming him and the defamatory material is still available to view elsewhere? Does Jim need to travel the world pursuing Facebook in 118 countries, and fighting 118 cases to have defamatory material about him removed?



It is thefore an extremely difficult balancing act between protecting free speech and protecting individuals from the unprecedented scope which defamatory material can reach to in the modern world.

When I said 'total', I didn't mean censoring everything, I meant totally censoring things that are judged illegal by ONE country.

[Scott777]

The story that the EU will allow member states to force censorship. That sort of tripe. It's about defamatory material and this is obviously a great thing. Something posted that's an obvious lie - defamatory, should be removed NOT from just the country you take the case but from all Facebook sites. Seriously you have a problem with that ??

And when it's not obvious in one country, but judged to be defamatory in another?

[cromwell]

Actually Conor I find your interpretation of this judgement most balanced and accurate of its intent,notwithstanding my earlier post regarding Catalonia  and Spain pressurising twatter to stop protests I made that post based on that info which I still believe true rather than that presented in the op.

I definitely recognise the concerns about the ruling. There is such a delicate balance to be struck that it's nigh impossible to  uphold a perfect interpretation of free speech and a perfect protection of your rights when someone defames you on social media.  I remember a judge in the Belfast High Court describing social media as an "uncontrollable monster" which would bring with it an unending litany of legal problems to lawmakers.



Social media is, arguably, the ultimate tool for freedom of expression and can help people get their message out to the world where the media will not (or indeed cannot). It provides a remarkable and unprecedented platform for people to express views and share material without it having to be churned through a bureaucratic machine which may seek to censor, spin, or sanitise it.



But this comes with a threat to our individual rights and the spectre of a new unofficial "court" — the court of social media — where anyone, be they acting sanely or like a lunatic, can publish anything about you without anyone first questioning its accuracy, admissibility or the legal implications of saying it before it gets plastered onto the internet. Once it's up there, it's almost impossible to make it fully disappear.



To me, this ruling does raise some difficult questions about free speech. But these kinds of rules have been inevitable for some time and I think we are going to see legislation which will have an international dimension given the global aspect of social media platforms like Facebook.

Well again another good post,I don't really use any social media but research tells me what you say is correct and it does need oversight.

[Conchúr]

That isn't what the ruling allows. It doesn't allow individual member states to force "total censorship", it is about compelling social media platforms to remove material on a global level which has been found (after due legal process) to be defamatory. Calling this "total censorship" is just outrageously hyperbolic.



Social media has exploded in popularity over the past ten years and has opened a floodgate to a whole new world of legal considerations. Lawmakers have simply struggled to keep up with this juggernaut because technology and social media move so quickly, while law moves slowly.



The effect of social media is that it provides a whole new platform for every Tom Dick & Harry to effectively "publish" whatever they want online, which can be viewed across an entire country or indeed the entire world. This was a level of reach which until quite recently in human history was confined to the media — which is subject to rules and regulation — but now extends to the Everyday Man who can fire anything up online to be viewed globally.



So the question is, if we live in this new world where I now have the power to 'publish' online whatever comes to my mind about Jim across the road (which could potentially be viewed all over the world), then where is Jim's protection if I am defaming him and the defamatory material is still available to view elsewhere? Does Jim need to travel the world pursuing Facebook in 118 countries, and fighting 118 cases to have defamatory material about him removed?



It is thefore an extremely difficult balancing act between protecting free speech and protecting individuals from the unprecedented scope which defamatory material can reach to in the modern world.

Actually Conor I find your interpretation of this judgement most balanced and accurate of its intent,notwithstanding my earlier post regarding Catalonia  and Spain pressurising twatter to stop protests I made that post based on that info which I still believe true rather than that presented in the op.

I definitely recognise the concerns about the ruling. There is such a delicate balance to be struck that it's nigh impossible to  uphold a perfect interpretation of free speech and a perfect protection of your rights when someone defames you on social media.  I remember a judge in the Belfast High Court describing social media as an "uncontrollable monster" which would bring with it an unending litany of legal problems to lawmakers.



Social media is, arguably, the ultimate tool for freedom of expression and can help people get their message out to the world where the media will not (or indeed cannot). It provides a remarkable and unprecedented platform for people to express views and share material without it having to be churned through a bureaucratic machine which may seek to censor, spin, or sanitise it.



But this comes with a threat to our individual rights and the spectre of a new unofficial "court" — the court of social media — where anyone, be they acting sanely or like a lunatic, can publish anything about you without anyone first questioning its accuracy, admissibility or the legal implications of saying it before it gets plastered onto the internet. Once it's up there, it's almost impossible to make it fully disappear.



To me, this ruling does raise some difficult questions about free speech. But these kinds of rules have been inevitable for some time and I think we are going to see legislation which will have an international dimension given the global aspect of social media platforms like Facebook.

[cromwell]

Highest EU court allows individual member states to force total censorship on social media.

That isn't what the ruling allows. It doesn't allow individual member states to force "total censorship", it is about compelling social media platforms to remove material on a global level which has been found (after due legal process) to be defamatory. Calling this "total censorship" is just outrageously hyperbolic.



Social media has exploded in popularity over the past ten years and has opened a floodgate to a whole new world of legal considerations. Lawmakers have simply struggled to keep up with this juggernaut because technology and social media move so quickly, while law moves slowly.



The effect of social media is that it provides a whole new platform for every Tom Dick & Harry to effectively "publish" whatever they want online, which can be viewed across an entire country or indeed the entire world. This was a level of reach which until quite recently in human history was confined to the media — which is subject to rules and regulation — but now extends to the Everyday Man who can fire anything up online to be viewed globally.



So the question is, if we live in this new world where I now have the power to 'publish' online whatever comes to my mind about Jim across the road (which could potentially be viewed all over the world), then where is Jim's protection if I am defaming him and the defamatory material is still available to view elsewhere? Does Jim need to travel the world pursuing Facebook in 118 countries, and fighting 118 cases to have defamatory material about him removed?



It is thefore an extremely difficult balancing act between protecting free speech and protecting individuals from the unprecedented scope which defamatory material can reach to in the modern world.

Actually Conor I find your interpretation of this judgement most balanced and accurate of its intent,notwithstanding my earlier post regarding Catalonia  and Spain pressurising twatter to stop protests I made that post based on that info which I still believe true rather than that presented in the op.

[Conchúr]

Highest EU court allows individual member states to force total censorship on social media.

That isn't what the ruling allows. It doesn't allow individual member states to force "total censorship", it is about compelling social media platforms to remove material on a global level which has been found (after due legal process) to be defamatory. Calling this "total censorship" is just outrageously hyperbolic.



Social media has exploded in popularity over the past ten years and has opened a floodgate to a whole new world of legal considerations. Lawmakers have simply struggled to keep up with this juggernaut because technology and social media move so quickly, while law moves slowly.



The effect of social media is that it provides a whole new platform for every Tom Dick & Harry to effectively "publish" whatever they want online, which can be viewed across an entire country or indeed the entire world. This was a level of reach which until quite recently in human history was confined to the media — which is subject to rules and regulation — but now extends to the Everyday Man who can fire anything up online to be viewed globally.



So the question is, if we live in this new world where I now have the power to 'publish' online whatever comes to my mind about Jim across the road (which could potentially be viewed all over the world), then where is Jim's protection if I am defaming him and the defamatory material is still available to view elsewhere? Does Jim need to travel the world pursuing Facebook in 118 countries, and fighting 118 cases to have defamatory material about him removed?



It is thefore an extremely difficult balancing act between protecting free speech and protecting individuals from the unprecedented scope which defamatory material can reach to in the modern world.

[GerryT]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Another entry for the Euro Myths website no doubt.

Oh yes, there are certainly many myths around, some of which you frequently mention....but never those which don't 'support' your preference...You adhere to  those such as the 'UK economy will collapse if it leaves the EU', and, 'The UK's terms of membership of the EU can be favourably amended', but only the ardent Europhiles such as Cameron, and probably yourself believed that one!!

The UK economy was predicted to take a hit after it leaves, that remains to be seen so it's not yet proven or disproved. So you can't call it a myth.

But these Euromyths have been called out for their bullcrap, care to comment on them

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/">https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eu ... a-z-index/">https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

[GerryT]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Another entry for the Euro Myths website no doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/facebook-faces-tougher-controls-after-eu-ruling">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -eu-ruling">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/facebook-faces-tougher-controls-after-eu-ruling



"Facebook will be subject to tougher controls over online content after the EU's highest court ruled the social media company can be ordered by member states to remove defamatory material worldwide."



Looks like pro-EU papers believe this.  Tell me, Gerry, which media would have to report it for you to believe it?  Or do you believe nothing?

The story that the EU will allow member states to force censorship. That sort of tripe. It's about defamatory material and this is obviously a great thing. Something posted that's an obvious lie - defamatory, should be removed NOT from just the country you take the case but from all Facebook sites. Seriously you have a problem with that ??

[Scott777]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Another entry for the Euro Myths website no doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/facebook-faces-tougher-controls-after-eu-ruling">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -eu-ruling">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/03/facebook-faces-tougher-controls-after-eu-ruling



"Facebook will be subject to tougher controls over online content after the EU's highest court ruled the social media company can be ordered by member states to remove defamatory material worldwide."



Looks like pro-EU papers believe this.  Tell me, Gerry, which media would have to report it for you to believe it?  Or do you believe nothing?

[Stevlin]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Another entry for the Euro Myths website no doubt.

Oh yes, there are certainly many myths around, some of which you frequently mention....but never those which don't 'support' your preference...You adhere to  those such as the 'UK economy will collapse if it leaves the EU', and, 'The UK's terms of membership of the EU can be favourably amended', but only the ardent Europhiles such as Cameron, and probably yourself believed that one!!

[GerryT]

Highest EU court allows individual member states to force total censorship on social media.



I'd just like to say, Tony Blair isn't a war criminal, never ever ever in a million years, and the EU is just marvellous, despite everything I've said.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Another entry for the Euro Myths website no doubt.

[cromwell]

Highest EU court allows individual member states to force total censorship on social media.

How handy to stop the Catalans  :cry:

[Scott777]

Highest EU court allows individual member states to force total censorship on social media.



I'd just like to say, Tony Blair isn't a war criminal, never ever ever in a million years, and the EU is just marvellous, despite everything I've said.