Affiliation:
1. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
2. Mykolas Romeris University
Abstract
In 2013 and 2015 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by its judgements in the famous case Delfi AS v. Estonia admitted the possibility of liability of the Internet news portal operator for unlawful comments of users. However, just half a year later, the ECHR in MTE & Index v. Hungary case, which was, at first sight, similar, took a different decision, i.e. that the website operator could not be held liable. Finally, in 2017 the ECHR in Pihl v. Sweden case resolved a dispute over a comment posted in a blog. Thus, this article analyses, by applying the comparative method, the primary pre-sumptions for website operator’s liability established in the above mentioned cases. The authors de-fine the criteria for assessment of the context of comments and models of conduct of website opera-tors and set certain general waymarks, which could be applied in similar cases.
Reference41 articles.
1. Notice-and-fair-balance: how to reach a compromise between fundamental rights in European intermediary liability
2. Axel Springer AG v. Germany. (2012). [GC] European Court
of Human Rights, appeal no 39954/08.
3. The Liability of an Online Intermediary for Third Party Content
4. The last post? Third party internet liability
and the grand chamber of the European court of
human rights: Delfi AS v Estonia revisited.;Caddell, R.;Communications
Law,2016
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献