Element 68Element 45Element 44Element 63Element 64Element 43Element 41Element 46Element 47Element 69Element 76Element 62Element 61Element 81Element 82Element 50Element 52Element 79Element 79Element 7Element 8Element 73Element 74Element 17Element 16Element 75Element 13Element 12Element 14Element 15Element 31Element 32Element 59Element 58Element 71Element 70Element 88Element 88Element 56Element 57Element 54Element 55Element 18Element 20Element 23Element 65Element 21Element 22iconsiconsElement 83iconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsElement 84iconsiconsElement 36Element 35Element 1Element 27Element 28Element 30Element 29Element 24Element 25Element 2Element 1Element 66

Glawischnig-Piesczek und die Gefahren nationaler Jurisdiktionskonflikte im Internet

Facebook can be forced to delete hate postings worldwide. This is the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited (C-18/18) case. Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, former spokeswoman for the Austrian Green Party, had sued the US company after it refused to remove insults against her from the platform.
 
Dr. Matthias Kettemann and Anna Sophia Tiedeke assess this decision in their article on the constitutional blog.


The judgment is contradictory in the sense that the ECJ itself does not lay down clear guidelines on the circumstances under which filters or global deletions of statements may be ordered by national courts. The judgment is contradictory in the sense that the ECJ itself does not lay down clear guidelines on the circumstances under which filters or global deletions of statements may be ordered by national courts. It also becomes clear that the judges at the ECJ apparently assume that automated systems and filters can be trained to detect violations of personal rights. On the one hand, the ECJ partially rejects the provider privilege and imposes extensive obligations on the platforms to detect and delete "similar expressions". It justifies this with the fact that it is not a "general obligation [...] to monitor" (the platforms should not be imposed), but rather "specific cases" (recital 34). On the other hand, it states that the platform operator would nevertheless not be expected to fulfil an excessive obligation, since "differences in the wording of [the] identical content in comparison with the content declared unlawful [...] must not be of such a nature that they force the hosting provider to carry out an autonomous assessment of this content" (recital 45), which is why the hosting provider can then also "resort to automated techniques and means of investigation" (recital 46).

Kettemann, M. C.; Tiedeke, A. S. (2019): Welche Regeln, welches Recht?: Glawischnig-Piesczek und die Gefahren nationaler Jurisdiktionskonflikte im Internet [Which Rules, Which Law? Glawischnig-Piesczek and the Dangers of National Jurisdiction Conflicts on the Internet], VerfBlog, 10.10.2019, https://verfassungsblog.de/welche-regeln-welches-recht/.

Facebook can be forced to delete hate postings worldwide. This is the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited (C-18/18) case. Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, former spokeswoman for the Austrian Green Party, had sued the US company after it refused to remove insults against her from the platform.
 
Dr. Matthias Kettemann and Anna Sophia Tiedeke assess this decision in their article on the constitutional blog.


The judgment is contradictory in the sense that the ECJ itself does not lay down clear guidelines on the circumstances under which filters or global deletions of statements may be ordered by national courts. The judgment is contradictory in the sense that the ECJ itself does not lay down clear guidelines on the circumstances under which filters or global deletions of statements may be ordered by national courts. It also becomes clear that the judges at the ECJ apparently assume that automated systems and filters can be trained to detect violations of personal rights. On the one hand, the ECJ partially rejects the provider privilege and imposes extensive obligations on the platforms to detect and delete "similar expressions". It justifies this with the fact that it is not a "general obligation [...] to monitor" (the platforms should not be imposed), but rather "specific cases" (recital 34). On the other hand, it states that the platform operator would nevertheless not be expected to fulfil an excessive obligation, since "differences in the wording of [the] identical content in comparison with the content declared unlawful [...] must not be of such a nature that they force the hosting provider to carry out an autonomous assessment of this content" (recital 45), which is why the hosting provider can then also "resort to automated techniques and means of investigation" (recital 46).

Kettemann, M. C.; Tiedeke, A. S. (2019): Welche Regeln, welches Recht?: Glawischnig-Piesczek und die Gefahren nationaler Jurisdiktionskonflikte im Internet [Which Rules, Which Law? Glawischnig-Piesczek and the Dangers of National Jurisdiction Conflicts on the Internet], VerfBlog, 10.10.2019, https://verfassungsblog.de/welche-regeln-welches-recht/.

About this publication

RELATED KEYWORDS

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and receive the Institute's latest news via email.

SUBSCRIBE!