EU court rules that Facebook can be forced to delete content

[Stevicus]

Facebook Can Be Forced to Delete Content, E.U.’s Top Court Rules

LONDON — Europe’s top court said on Thursday that an individual country can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos and restrict global access to that material, in a ruling that has implications for how countries can expand content bans beyond their borders.

The European Court of Justice’s decision came after a former Austrian politician sought to have Facebook remove disparaging comments about her that had been posted on an individual’s personal page, as well as “equivalent” messages posted by others. The politician, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, a former leader of Austria’s Green Party, argued that Facebook needed to delete the material in the country and limit worldwide access.

The decision is a blow to big internet platforms like Facebook, placing more responsibility on them to patrol their sites for content ruled illegal.

The article said this ruling could have a ripple effect in terms of regulating internet content.

The case has been closely watched because of its potential ripple effects for regulating internet content. The enforcement of defamation, libel and privacy laws varies from country to country, with language and behavior that is allowed in one nation prohibited in another. The court’s decision highlights the difficulty of creating uniform standards to govern an inherently borderless web and then enforcing them.

Some support the decision because they believe defamation laws haven't been enforced appropriately.

Supporters counter that defamation laws haven’t been enforced appropriately in the internet age and are needed to force platforms like Facebook to do more to combat internet trolls, hate speech and other personal attacks that spread on the web.

Facebook sharply criticized the ruling. “This judgment raises critical questions around freedom of expression and the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country,” the company said in a statement.

This also points up significant differences between how Europe and the United States operate in this area:

The decision highlights a widening gap between the United States and Europe on regulating the technology industry. Europe has imposed tougher policies on privacy, antitrust, copyright and content moderation, while the United States has traditionally had a more hands-off approach.

It appears that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc. may also be held liable if someone posts something that doesn't pass muster. It could mean they'll have to police their content far more stringently.

 

[ChristineM]

Each country has different laws, if and internet company wants to operate in a particular county their content shown in that country should adhere to the law of that country.

Wow, did i say that? I must be getting old, it's a major change from me who thinks the internet should be global and free.

So which is correctl

 

[England my lionheart]

Big brother comes to town.

 

[ChristineM]

Big brother comes to town.

Rather like the conservative government policing the "wild west" internet eh. So who came to town first?

 

[England my lionheart]

Rather like the conservative government policing the "wild west" internet eh. So who came to town first?

Policing without a warrant.

 

[ChristineM]

Policing without a warrant.

Yup thats thats conservative lot for ya

 

[Stevicus]

Each country has different laws, if and internet company wants to operate in a particular county their content shown in that country should adhere to the law of that country.

Wow, did i say that? I must be getting old, it's a major change from me who thinks the internet should be global and free.

So which is correctl

I suppose it could have the effect of building more barriers between countries, in terms of internet communication and commerce. Each country could have its own closed-off internet so as to not run afoul of another country's laws.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yup thats thats conservative lot for ya

I have no love for conservatives or anyone imposing on my stuff,nanny states and big brother can just **** off

 

[ChristineM]

I suppose it could have the effect of building more barriers between countries, in terms of internet communication and commerce. Each country could have its own closed-off internet so as to not run afoul of another country's laws.

The pre internet Minitel worked well on france. But the internet destroyed it.

The problem is with countries having their own closed internet is infrastructure. Its too intertwined to break up with server's in different countries relying on each other. For example, i have just done a traceroute between home and RF.

Home
Bordeaux
Seville
New York
San Francisco