Labelling Speech

Kasl, František

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58624-9_4

František Kasl⁴

Part of the book series: Political Campaigning and Communication ((PCC))

576 Accesses

Abstract

Every institutional response to disinformation and propaganda needs to be considered within the applicable legal framework for the protection of human rights. This includes the challenge of labelling the content under the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This chapter provides an analysis from this legal perspective based on the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It firstly describes the elements of freedom of expression and then deals with the labelling of disinformation within this framework. The focus is subsequently turned to the judicially inferred, permissible limitations on freedom of speech. A related issue is the underlying conflict with the freedom of the press and the media business. The final remarks concern the viability of internet service provider (co)liability for user-generated content.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, no. 6538/74, §41, ECHR 1979; Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom, no 13585/88, §59, ECHR 1991.
2.
Tønsberg Blad AS and Marit Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, ECHR 2007; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway, no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999.
3.
Markt Intern and Beermann v. Germany, no. 10572/83, ECHR 1990.
4.
Markt Intern and Beermann v. Germany, no. 10572/83, ECHR 1990.
5.
Kuhnen v. the Federal Republic of Germany (inadmissible), no. 12194/86, ECHR 1988.
6.
Buivids, C-345/17, §66, CJEU 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:122.
7.
Lingens v. Austria, no. 9815/82, §41, ECHR 1986.
8.
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, no. 5493/72, §48, ECHR 1976.
9.
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, no. 5493/72, §42 et seq., ECHR 1976.
10.
Lingens v. Austria, no. 9815/82, §34 et seq., ECHR 1986; Şener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, §25 et seq., ECHR 2000; Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, §32 et seq, ECHR 2001; Maronek v. Slovakia, no. 32686/96, §46 et seq, ECHR 2001; Dichand and Others v. Austria, no. 29271/95, §25 et seq., ECHR 2002.
11.
Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria (No. 3), no. 39069/97, §21 et seq., ECHR 2003.
12.
Muller and Others v. Switzerland, no. 10737/84, §26 et seq., ECHR 1988.
13.
Osterreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Starkung und Schaffung v. Austria, no. 39534/07, §28 et seq., ECHR 2013; Autronic AG v. Switzerland, no. 12726/87, §47, ECHR 1990.
14.
Muller and Others v. Switzerland, no. 10737/84, ECHR 1988.
15.
Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 24838/94, §88 et seq., ECHR 1998.
16.
Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, no. 10890/84, ECHR 1990.
17.
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, no. 5493/72, ECHR 1976.
18.
Sürek v. Turkey (No. 3), no. 24735/94, §40, ECHR 1999.
19.
Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, §8, ECHR 2012.
20.
PETA Deutschland v. Germany, no. 43481/09, §49, ECHR 2012.
21.
Glimmerveen and Haqenbeek v. the Netherlands, no. 8348/78,8406/78, ECHR 1979.
22.
Pavel Ivanov v. Russia, no. 35222/04, ECHR 2007.
23.
Roj TV A/S v. Denmark, no. 24683/14, ECHR 2018.
24.
Garaudy v. France, no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003.
25.
Norwood v. the United Kingdom, no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004.
26.
B.H, M.W, H.P and G.K. v. Austria, no. 12774/87, decision of the Commission 1989.
27.
The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, no. 6538/74, §46 et seq., ECHR 1979.
28.
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, no. 5493/72, §43–50, ECHR 1976.
29.
The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, no. 6538/74, §58 et seq., ECHR 1979.
30.
Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, ECHR 2005.
31.
The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 2), no. 13166/87, §51, ECHR 1991; Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, no. 13585/88, §59, ECHR 1991.
32.
Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, no. 17488/90, §27, ECHR 1996.
33.
Castells v. Spain, no. 11798/85, ECHR 1992.
34.
Muller and Others v. Switzerland, no. 10737/84, §28, ECHR 1988.
35.
Casado Coca v. Spain, no. 15450/89, §49, ECHR 1994.
36.
TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, §63, ECHR 2008.
37.
Leander v. Sweden, no. 9248/81, §50, ECHR 1987.
38.
Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, no. 13585/88, ECHR 1991.
39.
Weber v. Switzerland, no. 11034/84, §49, ECHR 1990.
40.
Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands, no. 16616/90, §38 et seq., ECHR 1995.
41.
Stoll v. Switzerland, no. 69698/01, §117 et seq., ECHR 2007.
42.
Sürek and Ozdemir v. Turkey, no. 26682/95, §49–50, ECHR 1999.
43.
Sürek v. Turkey (No. 3), no. 24735/94, §40–41, ECHR 1999.
44.
Sürek and Ozdemir v. Turkey, no. 23927/94,24277/94, §58 et seq., ECHR 1999.
45.
Kuhnen v. the Federal Republic of Germany (inadmissible), no. 12194/86, ECHR 1988.
46.
Saszmann v. Austria (inadmissible), no. 23697/94, ECHR 1997.
47.
Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, §81, ECHR 2009.
48.
Leroy v. France, no. 36109/03, ECHR 2008; Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, ECHR 2018.
49.
Lehideux and Isorni v. France, no. 24662/94, ECHR 1998.
50.
İ.A. v. Turkey, no. 42571/98, ECHR 2005.
51.
Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, ECHR 2011; Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, no. 51168/15, 51186/15, ECHR 2018.
52.
Pihl v. Sweden (inadmissible), no. 74742/14, ECHR 2017; Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, ECHR 2018.
53.
Muller and Others v. Switzerland, no. 10737/84, ECHR 1988; Vereinigung Bildender Kunstler v. Austria, no. 68354/01, ECHR 2007.
54.
The Observer and the Guardian v. the United Kingdom, no. 13585/88, §40, ECHR 1991.
55.
Silver and others v. the United Kingdom, no. 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, 7136/75, §97, ECHR 1983.
56.
Lingens v. Austria, no. 9815/82, §46, ECHR 1986; Oberschlick v. Austria, no. 11662/85, §63, ECHR 1991; Dichand and Others v. Austria, no. 29271/95, §42, ECHR 2002.
57.
Bergens Tidende and others, no. 26132/95, §57, ECHR 2000.
58.
Thorgeirson v. Iceland, no. 13778/88, §65, ECHR 1992.
59.
Sürek v. Turkey (No. 2), no. 24122/94, ECHR 1999.
60.
Guja v. Moldova, no. 14277/04, ECHR 2008.
61.
İzzettin Dogan and others v. Turkey, no. 62649/10, ECHR 2016.
62.
Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited, Highest Court of the United Kingdom 1999; Böll case, Bundesverfassungsgericht 1998; no. I. US 156/99, Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic 2000; no. 1 BvR 1531/96, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany 1998; no. 2001/19, Supreme Court of Norway 2001; no. 144/1998, Constitutional Court of Spain 1998; no. 28/1996, Constitutional Court of Spain 1996.
63.
Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas V. Norway, no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999.
64.
Dalban v. Romania, no. 28114/95, §50, ECHR 1999.
65.
Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas V. Norway, no. 21980/93, §59, ECHR 1999; Dalban v. Romania, no. 28114/95, §49, ECHR 1999; Thorgeirson v. Iceland, no. 13778/88, §65, ECHR 1992.
66.
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce).
67.
Art. 12–14 of Directive on electronic commerce.
68.
Art. 14 of Directive on electronic commerce.
69.
Google France SARL a Google, no. C-236/08, C-237/08, C-238/08, CJEU 2010; L’Oreal and others, no. C-324/09, CJEU 2011.
70.
Delfi v. Estonia, no. 64569/09, §147 et seq., ECHR 2015.
71.
Magyar Tartalomszolgaltatok Egyesulete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, no. 22947/13, §78 et seq., ECHR 2016.
72.
Pihl v. Sweden (inadmissible), no. 74742/14, §31, ECHR 2017.

Bibliography

Ajevski, M. (2014). Freedom of Speech as Related to Journalists in the ECtHR, IACtHR and the Human Rights Committee—A Study of Fragmentation. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 32(2), 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2014.897797.
Article Google Scholar
Aswad, E. M. (2018). The Future of Freedom of Expression Online. Duke Law & Technology Review, 17(1), 26–70.
Google Scholar
Barderi, D. (2018). Antirumours Handbook. Council of Europe.
Google Scholar
Bleich, E. (2014). Freedom of Expression versus Racist Hate Speech: Explaining Differences Between High Court Regulations in the USA and Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.851476.
Article Google Scholar
Bychawska-Siniarska, D. (2017). Protecting the Right to Freedom of Expression under the European Convention on Human Rights: A Handbook for Legal Practitioners. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/handbook-freedom-of-expression-eng/1680732814. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Callamard, A. (2017). Are Courts Re-inventing Internet Regulation? International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 31(3), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2017.1304603.
Article Google Scholar
Chapman, M., & Oermann, M. (2019). Supporting Quality Journalism Through Media and Information Literacy. MSI-JOQ. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/draft-version-of-msi-joq-study-report-rev-v6-2/168098ab74. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Council of Europe. (2018). Freedom of Expression, the Internet and New Technologies. Thematic Factsheet. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/freedom-of-expression-internet-and-new-technologies-14june2018-docx/16808b3530. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Dworkin, R. (1975). Hard Cases. Harvard Law Review, 88(6), 1057–1109. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340249.
Article Google Scholar
ECHR. (2018). Overview 1959–2018. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592018_ENG.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
ECHR. (2019a). European Convention on Human Rights—Official Texts, Convention and Protocols. https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
ECHR. (2019b). European Court of Human Rights—ECHR, CEDH, News, Information, Press Releases. https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
ECHR. (2019c). Factsheet—Hate Speech. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
ECHR. (2019d). Factsheet—Protection of Reputation. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2017). What Is the European Convention on Human Rights? https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-european-convention-human-rights. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
European Commission. (2019a). Tackling Online Disinformation. Digital Single Market—European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/tackling-online-disinformation. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
European Commission. (2019b). Stakeholder Dialogue on the Application of Article 17 of Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Digital Single Market—European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/stakeholder-dialogue-application-article-17-directive-copyright-digital-single-market. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
European Commission of Human Rights. (1977). Application No. 6538/74—TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD. and Others Against United Kingdom—Report of the Commission. Strasbourg: European Commission of Human Rights. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=001-73577&filename=THE%20SUNDAY%20TIMES%20v.%20THE%20UNITED%20KINGDOM%20(NO.%201).pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
European Parliament. (2019). Completion of EU Accession to the ECHR: Legislative Train Schedule. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Fioretti, J. (2018, April 26). EU Piles Pressure on Social Media over Fake News. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-internet-fakenews-idUSKBN1HX15D. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Flauss, J.-F. (2009). The European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Expression. Indiana Law Journal, 84(3). https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol84/iss3/3. Accessed 12 December 2019.
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006.
Article Google Scholar
Friedmann, D. (2014). Sinking the Safe Harbour with the Legal Certainty of Strict Liability in Sight. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 9(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt227.
Article Google Scholar
Friend, C., & Singer, J. (2015). Online Journalism Ethics: Traditions and Transitions. Abingdon: Routledge.
Book Google Scholar
Greer, S. (2000). The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing.
Google Scholar
Heldt, A. (2019). Reading Between the Lines and the Numbers: An Analysis of the First NetzDG Reports. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/reading-between-lines-and-numbers-analysis-first-netzdg-reports. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Husovec, M. (2013). ECtHR Rules on Liability of ISPs as a Restriction of Freedom of Speech. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2383148. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2383148. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Husovec, M. (2016). General Monitoring of Third-Party Content: Compatible with Freedom of Expression? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 11, 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv200.
Article Google Scholar
Husovec, M. (2017a). [ECtHR] Kharitonov v Russia: When Website Blocking Goes Awry. Huťko’s Technology Law Blog (blog). http://www.husovec.eu/2017/07/ecthr-kharitonov-v-russia-when-website.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Husovec, M. (2017b). Holey Cap! CJEU Drills (yet) Another Hole in the e-Commerce Directive’s Safe Harbours. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 12(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpw203.
Article Google Scholar
Katsirea, I. (2018). ‘Fake News’: Reconsidering the Value of Untruthful Expression in the Face of Regulatory Uncertainty. Journal of Media Law, 10(2), 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2019.1573569.
Article Google Scholar
Kuczerawy, A. (2015). Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression: Recent Developments in the EU Notice & Action Initiative. Computer Law & Security Review, 31(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.11.004.
Article Google Scholar
Kuijer, M. (2018). The Challenging Relationship Between the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Legal Order: Consequences of a Delayed Accession. The International Journal of Human Rights, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2018.1535433.
Lemmens, P. (2001). The Relation between the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights—Substantive Aspects. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 8(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X0100800104.
Article Google Scholar
McGonagle, T. (2017). ‘Fake News’: False Fears or Real Concerns? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35(4), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051917738685.
Article Google Scholar
McPeck, J. E. (2016). Critical Thinking and Education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Book Google Scholar
Normahfuzah, A. (2017). The Decline of Conventional News Media and Challenges of Immersing in New Technology. ESharp, 25(1), 71–82. (University of Glasgow).
Google Scholar
Olteanu, C. N. (2015). Some Reflections on Freedom of Expression. In International Conference Education and Creativity for a Knowledge-Based Society (pp. 261–264).
Google Scholar
Oozeer, A. (2014). Internet and Social Networks: Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 40(2), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050718.2014.909129.
Article Google Scholar
Pearce, G., & Platten, N. (2000). Promoting the Information Society: The EU Directive on Electronic Commerce. European Law Journal, 6(4), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0386.00113.
Article Google Scholar
Regules, J. M. (2018). MCEL Master Working Paper 2018/8. Disinformation and Freedom of Expression. A Study on the Regulation of ‘Fake News’ in the European Union (Master Working Paper). Maastricht: Maastricht Centre for European Law. https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/sites/default/files/mcel_master_working_paper_regules_20188_pdf.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Rzepliński, A. (1997). Restrictions to the Expression of Opinions or Disclosure of Information on Domestic or Foreign Policy of the State. Council of Europe—Monitor/Inf 1997. http://kryminologia.ipsir.uw.edu.pl/images/stronka/Pracownicy_publikacje/A.%20Rzeplinski_Restriction%20to%20%20the%20%20expression%20of%20opinions%20or%20disclosure%20on%20information%20on%20domestic%20or%20%20foreign%20policy.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Sluijs, J. P. (2012). From Competition to Freedom of Expression: Introducing Article 10 ECHR in the European Network Neutrality Debate. Human Rights Law Review, 12(3), 509–554. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngsO5.
UN Human Rights Committee. (2011). General Comment No. 34: Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression. United Nations. https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.
Venice Commission. (2004). Amicus Curiae Opinion on the Relationship between the Freedom of Expression and Defamation with Respect to Unproven Defamatory Allegations of Fact as Requested by the Constitutional Court of Georgia. CDL-AD(2004)011-e. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/CDL-AD(2004)011-e.aspx. Accessed 12 Dec 2019.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
František Kasl

Authors

František Kasl
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to František Kasl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of Political Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Miloš Gregor
Department of Political Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Petra Mlejnková

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kasl, F. (2021). Labelling Speech. In: Gregor, M., Mlejnková, P. (eds) Challenging Online Propaganda and Disinformation in the 21st Century. Political Campaigning and Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58624-9_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58624-9_4
Published: 10 March 2021
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-58623-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-58624-9
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics