The Chilling Effect of Liability for Online Reader Comments
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2017 |
| Journal | European Human Rights Law Review |
| Volume | Issue number | 22 | 4 |
| Pages (from-to) | 387-393 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract |
This article assesses how the European Court of Human Rights has responded to the argument that holding online news media liable for reader comments has a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The article demonstrates how the Court first responded by dismissing the argument, and focused on the apparent lack of evidence for any such chilling effect. The article then argues that the Court has moved away from its initial rejection, and now accepts that a potential chilling effect, even without evidence, is integral to deciding whether online news media should be liable for reader comments. Finally, the article argues that this latter view is consistent with the Court’s precedent in other areas of freedom of expression law where a similar chilling effect may also arise.
|
| Document type | Article |
| Note | With regard to cases: Delfi AS v Estonia (64569/09) [2015] E.M.L.R. 26 (ECHR (Grand Chamber)); Magyar Tartalomszolgaltatok Egyesulete v Hungary (22947/13) 42 B.H.R.C. 52 (ECHR); and: Pihl v Sweden (Admissibility) (74742/14) (2017) 64 E.H.R.R. SE20 (ECHR). |
| Language | English |
| Published at | https://www.westlaw.com/Document/IDC7690407B4F11E78815F959CAB39142/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0 |
| Permalink to this page | |
