INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES’ LIABILITY FOR ONLINE ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH

Considering the prevalence of online hate speech and its harm and risks to the targeted people, democratic discourse and public security, it is necessary to combat online hate speech. For this purpose, internet intermediaries play a crucial role as new governors of online speech. However, there is no universal definition of hate speech. Rules concerning this vary in different countries depending on their social, ethical, legal and religious backgrounds. The answer to the question of who can be liable for online hate speech also varies in different countries depending on the social, cultural, history, legal and political backgrounds. The First Amendment, cyberliberalism and the priority of promoting the emerging internet industry lead to the U.S. model, which offers intermediaries wide exemptions from liability for third-party illegal content. Conversely, the Chinese model of cyberpaternalism prefers to control online content on ideological, political and national security grounds through indirect methods, whereas the European Union (EU) and most European countries, including Germany, choose the middle ground to achieve balance between restricting online illegal hate speech and the freedom of speech as well as internet innovation. It is worth noting that there is a heated discussion on whether intermediary liability exemptions are still suitable for the world today, and there is a tendency in the EU to expand intermediary liability by imposing obligation on online platforms to tackle illegal hate speech. However, these reforms are again criticized as they could lead to erosion of the EU legal framework as well as privatization of law enforcement through algorithmic tools. Those critical issues relate to the central questions of whether intermediaries should be liable for user-generated illegal hate speech at all and, if so, how should they fulfill these liabilities? Based on the analysis of the different basic standpoints of cyberliberalists and cyberpaternalists on the internet regulation as well as the arguments of proponents and opponents of the intermediary liability exemptions, especially the debates over factual impracticality and legal restraints, impact on internet innovation and the chilling effect on freedom of speech in the case that intermediaries bear liabilities for illegal third-party content, the paper argues that the arguments for intermediary liability exemptions are not any more tenable or plausible in the web 3.0 era. The outdated intermediary immunity doctrine needs to be reformed and amended. Furthermore, intermediaries are becoming the new governors of online speech and platforms now have the power to curtail online hate speech. Thus, the attention should turn to the appropriate design of legal responsibilities of intermediaries. The possible suggestions could be the following three points: Imposing liability on intermediaries for illegal hate speech requires national law and international human rights norms as the outer boundary; openness, transparency and accountability as internal constraints; balance of multi-interests and involvement of multi-stakeholders in internet governance regime.     

Internet intermediaries: The liability for defamatory postings in China and Hong Kong

The debate between protecting the freedom of expression on the one hand and the right to an individual privacy on the other is not new. Certainly with the introduction of the Internet, the debate has moved onto a whole new level. While no-one disputes that the Internet has significantly transformed lives by allowing netizens to create, share, and communicate within the global village, the Internet has also provided the means to publish and disseminate false information and derogatory remarks callously and expediently. The aim of this paper is to provide a brief comparative study of the approaches in China and in Hong Kong with respect to Internet intermediary liability for defamatory postings and whether the approaches taken provide the necessary balance between the right of free expression and the right to protect one’s reputation. The paper starts by dealing with the position in China pre and post Tort Liability Law. The paper then continues by examining the position in Hong Kong focusing particularly on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd. In comparing the position in China and Hong Kong, the paper provides a conclusion as a possible way forward for Internet intermediary liability in China and Hong Kong.     

互联网发展的主要法治问题

互联网的安全问题、网上言论表达自由、电子商务、人格权保护、著作权保护、侵权责任等问题都是信息时代的法律所面对的新挑战。从我国的法治建设全局出发,对这些法律问题进行深入研究,提出相应的立法和司法对策,是当前的一项紧迫任务。构建互联网上的法治,需要借鉴相关国家(地区)的立法,总结近年来各种特别立法和司法审判实践的经验,探索从特别法调整为主过渡到专门法律调整为主的模式。     

The liability of website owners for defamation in Israel: A challenge yet to be solved?

From the end of the twentieth century to the present we have witnessed the effects of technology on the way we consume and distribute information. The print media, which in many ways was the natural product of the printing revolution, has given way to the electronic media with websites providing the new “town squares” in which the public discourse is held on political, economic and social issues among others. The Israeli legal system, like the legal systems in other countries, faces a variety of challenges and complex ethical and legal issues when required to regulate (often retrospectively) the manner and processes through which the discourse will be conducted in the virtual “town hall”. In essence, this article focuses on one of the many questions occupying the Israeli legal system and that is whether website owners should be liable in defamation for speech published by third parties on the Internet (through blogs, tweets on Twitter, posts on Facebook,¹ uploaded video clips on YouTube and the like) when no connection exists between the third party and the site owner apart from the fact that the third party has used the website as a platform to publish the offensive speech. The issue of the liability of the website owner has ramifications for the injured party's capacity to institute an action for defamation against the website owner, as often only the latter will be in a position to compensate the injured party (financially) for the offensive speech. The Israeli legal system, which in many ways furnishes a unique and interesting framework for examining the question posed above, as we explain in the body of the article, presents a fascinating example of how the Israeli legislature and the courts have dealt and continue to deal with claims filed against website owners for damage to reputation as a result of speech published by third parties. The article offers a comprehensive review of the status of the right to freedom of speech, anonymity and the right to reputation in Israel, the considerations for and against the imposition of liability on website owners and the latest case law on these questions.     

From gatekeepers to publishers: Liability of internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content

This article aims to analyse the liability of Internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content. In the absence of any statutory law relating to online defamation, the courts in India have had to rely upon comparable developments in the United Kingdom to define the contours of liability of the intermediaries for facilitating the publication of defamatory content on the Internet. However, affixing liability on intermediaries in the absence of similar statutory immunities provided to them under the UK law may prove prejudicial to the intermediaries. Therefore, this article argues that India should enact a comprehensive law to statutorily limit the grounds on which liability may be imposed on Internet intermediaries for hosting online defamatory content. This article further argues that India should adopt and codify the ‘notice and notice plus’ approach to intermediary liability as it ensures that intermediaries are not held liable as publishers for hosting the defamatory content, but in the meantime are also encouraged to take active steps to ensure effective justice to the victims of online defamation.     

编辑侵权行为研究

编辑未经作者或其他著作权人授意,又无法律上的根据,擅自对著作权作品进行利用或以其他非法手段行使著作权人专有权利的行为就构成侵权。编辑侵权行为主要表现在编辑未经著作权人许可而发表其作品,编辑未经合作作者许可而将与他人合作创作的作品当作自己单独创作的作品发表;编辑违背作者意愿未在作者创作的作品上署名,编辑擅自改变作品的署名及署名方式,编辑利用职务之便违背作者意愿在没有参加创作劳动的作品上署了己名;编辑非法阻止作者修改作品,编辑未经作者许可修改作品;编辑在加工过程中歪曲作品原意,编辑在改编过程中篡改作品内容;编辑侵犯著作权人信息网络传播权的行为;编辑侵犯著作权人获得报酬权的行为等等。编辑侵权要承担相应的民事责任、行政责任,对于严重侵犯著作权和邻接权且对社会公共利益造成了严重损害而构成犯罪后果的还要追究侵权人的刑事责任。欲避免编辑侵权行为发生,就要进一步提升编辑的法制意识和水平,强化编辑的道德素养和责任,加大刊社的规范管理和建设,完善出版的法律制度和政策。     

论消费者权之法律边界

消费者权的行使可能会损害经营者的经营自由,权利冲突意味着权利的限制与边界,确立消费者权法律边界的理论依据主要有权利冲突理论和权利不得滥用原则。过错责任是消费者权利与经营者经济自由平衡保护的重要机制,特殊消费侵权行为适用无过错责任时,也应遵循法益衡量规则。     

Camera shy – the interaction between the camera and the law of privacy in the UK

Modern man appears to have an insatiable thirst for learning about the private lives of others, and the media is happy to indulge him, constantly informing, updating, educating and entertaining via newspapers, periodicals, radio, television and the Internet. This can pit two competing rights against each other – the right of the individual to personal privacy and the right of the media to freedom of expression. One of the most hotly contested battle grounds in this ongoing war is over the publication of photographs in our celebrity obsessed society. As the battle rages, the nascent law of privacy in the UK is constantly evolving. This paper aims to give an overview of the evolution of the law of privacy in the UK focussing on the way in which these two rights to privacy and freedom of expression compete against each other in the context of photographs.     

法治语境下网络谣言的政府规制

摘 要;随着互联网的普及,网络谣言也开始广泛传播,不仅给社会稳定、经济发展和人民群众的生产生活造成了诸多危害,而且使政府公信力面临严峻的挑战.本文概述了网络谣言的基础理论,分析了政府规制网络谣言的必要性、可行性,并结合域外治理网络谣言的经验,探讨了我国治理网络谣言的法治路径：即提高政府责任意识和服务意识,推动政府信息公开发布;疏通公众权利救济渠道,将社会矛盾解决在萌芽状态;明确界定言论自由和网络谣言的边界,不枉不纵治理网络造谣等不法行为;严格网络监管,将制造网络谣言与公民个人信用记录挂钩以及强化网络服务提供商的责任和义务.     

Media Freedom and Political Debate in the Digital Era

This article examines the impact of online expression on theories of media freedom. While media freedom has generally been justified instrumentally, the opportunities for expression via the Internet may require greater emphasis on the interests of the individual speaker. Despite this development, this article shows how a small number of speakers will still command a much wider audience and have greater influence over political debate. For such speakers the approach to media freedom devised in the mass media era will remain applicable.     

Jurisprudential Foundation of the Alogithmic Enforcement and Regulation of Law in an Intelligent Society: Taking the Automated Copyright Infringement Monitoring of the Online Content Sharing Platform as an Example

As cyber-space has become increasingly important for human activities, and intelligent algorithms are widely used in cyber-space, we are rapidly entering an intelligent society. Now, algorithmic enforcement and regulations of law have posed non-negligible issues. As algorithmic enforcement of copyright law was introduced earlier than that of other laws, it provides a helpful observation perspective. The worldwide practice of copyright enforcement has gradually departed from traditional “safe harbor provisions, ” and has emphasized prior examination of shared contents uploaded by Internet service providers’ (ISPs) users through the following three dimensions: automated infringement detection algorithms voluntarily used by the ISPs, heavier judicial liability of ISPs, and updated legislation principles. Thus, innovations and development have stimulated new mechanisms and regulations for enforcing copyright in cyberspace. Algorithmic enforcement of copyright law in an intelligent society is essential and meaningful. The copyright regulation mechanisms should be guided by jurisprudential principles and concepts featuring the principles of (a) legitimate and efficient flow of information, (b) balance between and among algorithmic power, public power and private rights, (c) boosting the sharing economy and the new gig economy, and (d) promoting social governance philosophy of “coconstruction, co-governance and sharing.” These principles are meaningful for creation of a new mechanism for balancing interests between ISPs and their users, and for introducing the pluralistic co-governance mechanism beyond simply practicing “filtering obligations.” In addition, these principles are significant for improving a certification with credibility of copyright status and ownership, and for advancing a mechanism for online collegiate-panel dispute resolution.     

新闻媒体的公权利与社会权力

知情权、参与权、表达权、监督权这四权是新闻媒体权利的主要构成要件.其中知情权和表达权是新闻媒体赖以生存的基础;参与权和监督权则是新闻媒体安身立命的价值所在.新闻媒体拥有的公民权(公权利),也可转化为强大的社会公共权力.它是公民权利和社会权力的合金.新闻自由是公民和媒体的宪法权利,包括媒体搜集、制作、发布、传播新闻和言论的自由,及公民个人收受新闻、通过媒体发表意见和言论的自由,均应受法律保护,也要受一定限制,承担相应的社会责任、法律责任.     

The Internet gambling conundrum: Extraterritorial impacts of U.S. laws on Internet businesses

Internet gambling is a significant commercial activity that has been successfully adapted to the online environment. The geographical transcendence of the Internet presents challenges for government regulation, which varies considerably. U.S. patrons have historically provided a significant portion of the Internet gaming market, despite a dubious legal status. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) enacted in October 2006 clarifies the legal status otherwise imposed by state law by prescribing felony criminal status to the Act of receiving an Internet wager from a jurisdiction where such wagering is illegal. This article provides an analysis of the UIGEA and its effects on Internet gambling firms, as well as related businesses. Despite targeting gambling firms, this legislation may also assist in the prosecution of other firms through aiding and abetting liability. UIGEA also targets financial services providers, requiring additional safeguards to stop unlawful transactions destined for Internet gaming sites. Financial markets suggest that this legislation has reduced Internet gambling in publicly traded firms. However, the bill may also have the effect of enhancing investment capital flows for online gambling firms, due to clarification of the legal status for firms who are not targeting U.S. residents in violation of UIGEA. The ultimate result may depend on whether other nations follow suit in targeting extraterritorial business with domestic gambling patrons.     

Emerging styles of social control on the internet: Justice denied

The rapid growth of the Internet during the past 10 years has resulted in many disagreements over who should have the power to make and enforce the rules of on-line content and conduct and what form, such rules and enforcement should take— informal or formal. The extremes at which each of these potentially complementary systems of social control are currently practiced have contributed to an atmosphere of inconsistency, contradiction, uncertainty, and excessive discretion amongst state agencies, Internet service providers, system operators, and Internet users. If the Internet is to serve as a major communication, entertainment, and information medium in the 21st Century, a system is needed that integrates the strengths of both informal and formal systems of control while respecting the social, intellectual, and political freedom of the Internet community.     

我国《侵权责任法》损害补偿条款的解释论

我国《侵权责任法》损害补偿条款,是立法者坚持社会主义理念,追求和谐稳定政策的产物,是共同体主义法文化在新时期的表现。损害补偿条款是一种新型法定之债,让经济强者承担了国家应当承担的救济经济弱者的义务。损害补偿条款原则适用于生命权和健康权受损害的场合,适用于受害人不能维持当地基本生活的场合,凸显生命权大于财产权的理念,凸显生存权大于发展权的理念。损害补偿条款属于衡平性条款,应当坚持合宪解释和限缩解释。最高人民法院应当及时出台损害补偿条款法律适用的司法解释。     

民法典中的侵权行为法体系展望

侵权法的体系应当顺时而变以满足现代工业社会的需要。侵权法的目的应当从保障行为人自由向填补受害人损失发展,侵权法上的归责事由应当包括自己过错责任、替代责任和物的责任三种,立法模式应当包括一般条款、有限列举、无限列举三种模式。在内容上侵权行为法应当包括归责事由、责任类型、损害赔偿等。     

侵权立法若干问题思考

侵权法应定名为侵权责任法而不是侵权行为法。侵权请求权应包括绝对权请求权,同时在法律适用上应理顺侵权损害赔偿请求权与绝对权请求权之间的关系。侵权法的归责原则具有"原则—规则"双重属性,是贯通侵权法内部体系和外部体系的枢纽。作为原则,归责原则应包括过错责任、无过错责任、过错推定责任和公平责任四元体系。作为法律规则,归责原则具有模糊性和具体性。最大限度的类型化是侵权责任立法的理想,采取"框架式全面类型化"即规定侵权必要类型并采取总分结构,是类型化的现实模式。     

论劳动报酬权的优先权属性

劳动报酬权作为社会性权利,既是契约自由的表现,也是国家干预的结果。它的权利属性,决定了它的优先权属性。劳动报酬优先权具有一般特定债权的优先权特征和社会权法定性特征。我国立法特别是劳动法应确立劳动报酬权优先实现原则。     

Rethinking blood shield statutes in view of the hepatitis C pandemic and other emerging threats to the blood supply

Researchers have identified at least twenty-five pathogens that can be transmitted through blood transfusions. Four percent of patients who receive the average amount of blood during a transfusion are at risk of being infected with a contaminated unit, and exposed to the danger of serious adverse reactions, including future debilitating conditions. Victims of transfusion-related diseases, however, generally have been unsuccessful when making claims against the purveyors of blood products because of blood shield statutes that were initially enacted in response to unknown pathogens that made the blood an "unavoidably unsafe" product. Today, blood purveyors are aware of the possibility of epidemics from unsafe blood and have continued to research and supervise the blood supply to create mechanisms that detect and inactivate various blood-borne pathogens. In response to the current and advancing methods of blood purification, this Article suggests that a hybrid strict liability/negligence standard be implemented to ensure advancements in safety of blood transfusions. A strict liability standard should attach for infections that can be detected and eliminated through current testing and inactivation methods. A negligence standard should govern infections for which no current test or inactivating method is available. Under this approach, blood purveyors would be compelled to take account of the risks of any manufacturing decisions that they make, and they would not enjoy the freedom from liability that the blood shield statutes now provide. The costs necessary to ensure compliance with this hybrid structure are small in comparison to the social and economic costs exacted by thousands of transfusion-related diseases.     

必要性与可行性:“被遗忘权”制度的引入之辩

数字化记忆是互联网信息时代的重要表征。“被遗忘权”制度的提出,突显了公众对“过度记忆”这一时代发展趋势的抗拒。但是,“被遗忘权”在本土化移植问题上面临着权利实施必要性、权利实现可行性双重困境。一方面,“被遗忘权”所欲保护的利益与我国《个人信息保护法》中“删除权”所涵摄之内容重叠;另一方面,“被遗忘权”的引入会影响公众言论自由权及知情权的行使,危害良性社会秩序的建立。同时,由于“被遗忘权”的权利内容过于宽泛,易被异化为一种“特权”,从而影响互联网信息的流动,抑制我国信息产业的发展。因此,我国目前不宜引入“被遗忘权”。