首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Sanctions on digital platforms: Balancing proportionality in a modern public square
Institution:1. CRIDES-UCLouvain, Place Montesquieu, 2 bte L2.07.01, B-1348-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium;2. University of Essex, School of Law, Wivenhoe Park, CO4 3SQ, Colchester, United Kingdom;3. FÖV Speyer, Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2, 67346 Speyer, Germany;1. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (LSTS), Belgium;2. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (LSTS), Belgium and Tilburg University (TILT), the Netherlands;1. University of Southampton, Simmons & Simmons LLP, United Kingdom;2. Automate Legal, United Kingdom;1. Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School, Brasil;2. Associate Professor of Law, University of Leeds, United Kingdom;1. Department of Communication and Media Research (IKMZ), University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15, CH-8050 Zürich;2. eLaw Center for Law and Digital Technologies, Leiden University, Steenschuur 25, 2311 ES Leiden, The Netherlands;3. Department of Communication and Culture, BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway;4. Center for Information Technology, Society, and Law (ITSL), University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 74 / 38, CH-8001 Zürich;5. Digital Life Initiative at Cornell Tech & Information Law Institute at NYU School of Law, Affiliate at Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University, United States
Abstract:This paper asks which legal tools digital operators could use to manage colliding rights on their platforms in a digitalised and transnational space such as the Internet. This space can be understood as a “modern public square”, bringing together actions in the digitalised world and their interactions with actual events in the physical world. It is then useful to provide this space with a discursive framework allowing for discussing and contesting actions happening on it. In particular, this paper suggests that two well-known legal concepts, proportionality and sanctions, can be helpfully articulated within that discursive framework. In a first step, proportionality, a justificatory tool, is often used to suggest a way for managing colliding rights. This paper argues that for proportionality to be useful in managing colliding rights on digital platforms, its role, scope and limits need to be better framed and supplemented by an overall digital environment which can feed into the proportionality test in an appropriate way. This can be provided, thanks to a second step, namely labelling in law the actions digital operators take as sanctions. Sanctions are the reactions organised by digital operators to bring back social order on the platforms. The labelling of these reactions under the legal category of “sanctions” offers a meaningful tool for thinking about what digital operators do when they manage colliding rights by blocking or withdrawing contents and/or accounts. As different types of sanctions can be distinguished, differentiated legal consequences, especially in relation to managing colliding rights, can be identified. Here the role played by the proportionality test can be distinguished depending on the type of sanctions. In any case, for sanctions and proportionality to help address colliding rights on the modern public square, a discursive framework needs to be developed, which depends on the existence of relevant meaningful communities engaging in reflecting on the use of sanctions and proportionality.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号