Collateral censorship and efficient process
Horizontal effects of freedom of speech on the Internet
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.75.09Abstract
Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union have highlighted the value of freedom of speech not only in vertical relations between States and citizens, but also in horizontal relations through the proportionality principle. Directive (EU) 2019/790 by means of emphasizing the need for an efficient process has increased the requirements for the safe harbour, that is, to be considered neutral actors and avoid liability intermediaries must implement a higher level of supervision on content uploaded through filtering techniques that generates incentives for collateral censorship causing chilling effects on freedom of speech.
Faced with this problem, the scope of internet service providers’ liability should be delimited according to the due process rights and the requirement for specific knowledge even if this implies less efficiency to block infringing content. In other words, internet service providers’ liability would be justified not only on the need for efficiency, but fundamentally on the recognition of citizens’ dialogical capacity linked to the horizontal effect of freedom of speech to promote creativity and avoid collateral censorship on the internet.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.
