Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Possible Directions for the Future

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Censorship from Plato to Social Media

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 61))

  • 196 Accesses

Abstract

According to Martin Gurri, these are revolutionary times. Information revolutionary times, of which there have only been four in history, because “information has not grown incrementally over history, but has expanded in great pulses or waves.” The fight to secure freedom of expression has reached an exciting new stage. The internet, this brand new form of communication, can enable millions and billions to speak freely. The struggle for freedom of expression has only taken new directions with the advent of the internet, but old fears have remained with us in new guises. As technology advances, speech will prevail, and those who seek to suppress it will also prevail. It is vital for all of us that states do not push their citizens into the digital darkness. The complex framework—which combines legal, political and economic aspects of regulating the internet—is still to be established.

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gurri (2018), p. 27.

  2. 2.

    Ibid.

  3. 3.

    Balkin (2018), p. 1188.

  4. 4.

    Friedmann (2014), p. 13.

  5. 5.

    Cf. “The ECD provisions, rather than aligning state-level policies, created differences in interpretation during the national implementation process.” OSCE (2011), p. 32. “Under the DSA, the Internal Market will work in a unique and unified way, because up until now Member States have interpreted the e-Commerce Directive in very different ways.” Horváth (2022), p. 12.

  6. 6.

    Bayer (2021), pp. 25–45; Galewska (2021), pp. 105–136; Szőke (2021), pp. 105–120.

  7. 7.

    Bennett and Naim (2015).

  8. 8.

    Koebler and Cox (2018).

  9. 9.

    Interpretative insert by the author.

  10. 10.

    Hertig Randall (2016), p. 253.

  11. 11.

    For details on the metaverse concept, see Ball (2021).

  12. 12.

    Newton (2021).

  13. 13.

    This follows the acquisition of Oculus, a VR games company, by Facebook in 2014 for $2 billion. Solomon (2014).

  14. 14.

    For more on data capitalism, see West (2019), pp. 20–41; Mayer-Schönberger and Ramge (2018).

  15. 15.

    Tusikov (2017), pp. 400–402.

  16. 16.

    The latter is what he calls the ‘Code’. For details, see Lessig (1999), pp. 87–89 and an updated version: Lessig (2006).

  17. 17.

    Gorwa (2019), p. 14.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., p. 15.

  19. 19.

    Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto; CM/Rec(2007)16.

  20. 20.

    Lénárd (2021).

  21. 21.

    However, opponents of the theory argue that this would make access significantly more expensive for users. Downes (2016).

  22. 22.

    Kosseff (2017), p. 9.

  23. 23.

    The reasoning was that they are giving space to false or misleading information about vaccinations. Even if the point could be valid, the wording of POTUS was definitely badly chosen. Rodriguez (2021).

  24. 24.

    Bayer (2019), p. 19.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., pp. 20–21.

  26. 26.

    Keller and Leerssen (2020), p. 223.

  27. 27.

    Oster (2015b), p. 367.

  28. 28.

    Park (2013), pp. 946–947.

  29. 29.

    Klonick (2020), p. 2448.

  30. 30.

    LSETTTC (2018), pp. 36–38.

  31. 31.

    Koltay (2017), p. 131.

  32. 32.

    Szigeti and Simon (2016), p. 122.

  33. 33.

    Maroni (2019), p. 17.

  34. 34.

    Buiten et al. (2019), pp. 15–16.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., p. 17.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p. 18.

  37. 37.

    Helberger et al. (2018), pp. 1–14.

  38. 38.

    Bourreau and Perrot (2020), p. 9.

  39. 39.

    Polyák (2020), p. 140.

  40. 40.

    https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/gni-principles/.

  41. 41.

    https://manilaprinciples.org/.

  42. 42.

    Of course, only if they did not contribute to the production of the content. I. b. Ibid. The same emphasises the maintenance of the general prohibition of monitoring. I. d), ibid.

  43. 43.

    Although, as we have seen above, legislators and international courts have addressed the question of the justification for notifying service providers, the Manila Principles are clear on the minimum content of notifications:

    1. 1.

      The legal basis for the assertion that the content is unlawful.

    2. 2.

      The Internet identifier and description of the allegedly unlawful content.

    3. 3.

      The consideration provided to limitations, exceptions, and defences available to the user content provider.

    4. 4.

      Contact details of the issuing party or their agent, unless this is prohibited by law.

    5. 5.

      Evidence sufficient to document legal standing to issue the request.

    6. 6.

      A declaration of good faith that the information provided is accurate. Ibid., III. b).

  44. 44.

    https://santaclaraprinciples.org/.

  45. 45.

    The Special Rapporteur cites the example of the Korean Communications Standards Commission, a quasi-public and quasi-private body established by the Republic of Korea to regulate online content. UNHRC (2011), p. 43.

  46. 46.

    CM/Rec(2018)2.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., 1.3.7.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., 9.

  49. 49.

    Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/334, (3).

  50. 50.

    UN – OSCE – OAS – ACHPR (2019).

  51. 51.

    Ibid., 3. a.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., 3. d.

  53. 53.

    Bertolini (2021), p. IX.

  54. 54.

    However, see the Australian Supreme Court ruling in autumn 2021 that Australian media companies can be held liable for defamatory comments. Mao (2021); Gosztonyi and Huszár (2022).

  55. 55.

    However, on the limits of self-regulation, see Bayer (2019), p. 18.

  56. 56.

    Bertolini (2021), pp. 74–83.

  57. 57.

    COM/2021/118 final, p. 1.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., p. 18.

  59. 59.

    Török (2021).

  60. 60.

    The presentation is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCplocVemjo/. Berners-Lee (2014), pp. 39–41. The issue is closely related to the issue of digital constitutionalism, which this book does not discuss. See Celeste (2019), pp. 76–99; De Gregorio (2021), pp. 41–70.

  61. 61.

    Cf. “We need laws, not platform policies.” European Parliament News (2021).

  62. 62.

    Wu (2015), p. 309.

  63. 63.

    Gorwa (2019).

  64. 64.

    “A blanket condemnation of self-regulation for being contaminated by the seed of censorship is as mistaken as the view that welcomes self-regulation on the sole grounds that it means (or appears to mean) less governmental intervention.” Tambini et al. (2008), p. 284.

  65. 65.

    Bradford (2023)

  66. 66.

    Fazekas (2020), pp. 907–931.

  67. 67.

    FH (2021), p. 11.

  68. 68.

    Badouard (2020), p. 13.

  69. 69.

    Cf. “Now, however, it is entirely possible that the ultimate cyberlord is government itself.” Yen (2020), p. 145.

  70. 70.

    Kaye (2019), p. 84.

  71. 71.

    Culliford (2020).

  72. 72.

    On the hypothetical demise of Facebook and its ethical and legal implications, see Öhman and Aggarwal (2020).

  73. 73.

    Kaye (2019), p. 84.

  74. 74.

    Dershowitz (2021), p. 44.

  75. 75.

    CM/Rec(2016)5, p. 5.

  76. 76.

    Sanders (2021), p. 171.

  77. 77.

    Cf. “The power of such intermediaries as protagonists of online expression makes it imperative to clarify their role and impact on human rights, as well as their corresponding duties and responsibilities.” CM/Rec(2018)2, 7.

  78. 78.

    CM/Rec(2016)5, 2.1.1.; UNESCO (2023), pp. 55–59.

  79. 79.

    Suzor (2019), p. 114; A declaration for the future of the Internet.

  80. 80.

    Oster (2015a), pp. 123–124.

  81. 81.

    UNESCO (2023), p. 29.

  82. 82.

    “Laws and policies relating to the Internet are developed by State authorities in an inclusive and transparent process which enables the participation of all stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society, academia and the technical community.” CM/Rec(2016)5, 1.4.

  83. 83.

    Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/334, (30).

  84. 84.

    Puddephatt (2021), pp. 7–9.

  85. 85.

    UNHRC (2021), p. 70; Kokoly (2021), pp. 67–75.

  86. 86.

    Article-19 (2021), p. 19.

  87. 87.

    Noorlander (2021), pp. 1–4.

  88. 88.

    LSETTTC (2018), pp. 25–27.

  89. 89.

    Sartor (2017), p. 12.

  90. 90.

    “It remains challenging to establish criteria according to which intermediaries’ interventions can clearly be classified as active or passive. Plenty of interventions or activities, particularly regarding content moderation, remain in a grey area.” Barata (2021).

  91. 91.

    Article-19 (2013), p. 14.

  92. 92.

    Sartor (2017), p. 15.

  93. 93.

    Haraszti (1991), p. 25.

  94. 94.

    Jain and Variath (2020).

References

  • A declaration for the future of the Internet, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Declaration-for-the-Future-for-the-Internet_Launch-Event-Signing-Version_FINAL.pdf

  • Article-19 (2013) Internet intermediaries: dilemma of liability. 20 Aug. https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf

  • Article-19 (2021) Taming Big Tech. Protecting freedom of expression through the unbundling of services, open markets, competition, and users’ empowerment. 8 Dec. https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Taming-big-tech_FINAL_8-Dec-1.pdf

  • Badouard R (2020) Les nouvelles lois du web. Modération et censure (The new laws of the web. Moderation and censorship). Le Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Balkin JM (2018) Free speech in the algorithmic society. The new school of big data, private regulation and the regulation of expression. Columbia Law Rev 118(7)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball M (2021) A framework for the metaverse. MatthewBall.vc, 29 June. https://www.matthewball.vc/all/forwardtothemetaverseprimer/

  • Barata J (2021) The digital services act and the reproduction of old confusions: obligations, liabilities and safeguards in content moderation. VerfBlog, 2 March. https://verfassungsblog.de/dsa-confusions/

  • Bayer J (2019) Between Anarchy and Censorship. Public discourse and the duties of social media. CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe, 2019(3). https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/LSE2019-03_Between-Anarchy-and-Censorship.pdf

  • Bayer J (2021) Rights and duties of online platforms. In: Bayer J, Holznagel B, Korpisaari P, Woods L (eds) Perspectives on platform regulation. Concepts and models of social media governance across the globe. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Baden-Baden

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett P, Naim M (2015) 21st-century censorship. Columbia Journal Rev 14(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Berners-Lee T (2014) We need a Magna Carta for the Internet. New Perspect Q 31(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolini A (2021) Liability of online platforms. European Parliamentary Research Service, European Union, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourreau M, Perrot A (2020) Plateformes numériques: réguler avant qu’il ne soit trop tard (Digital platforms: regulate before it’s too late). Notes du Conseil d’Analyse Économique 60(6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford A (2023) Digital empires. The global battle to regulate technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buiten M, De Streel A, Peitz M (2019) Rethinking liability rules for online hosting platforms. CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series, 74

    Google Scholar 

  • Celeste E (2019) Digital constitutionalism: a new systematic theorisation. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 33(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/334 of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online, C/2018/1177, OJ L 63, 6.3.2018, pp 50–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Communication from the Commission of the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade. COM/2021/118 final

    Google Scholar 

  • Culliford E (2020) Where U.S. presidential candidates stand on breaking up Big Tech. Reuters, 24 Jan. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-tech-factbox-idUSKBN1ZN16C/

  • De Gregorio G (2021) The rise of digital constitutionalism in the European Union. Int J Const Law 19(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dershowitz A (2021) Case against the new censorship. Protecting free speech from big tech, progressives, and universities. Hot Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes L (2016) Why treating the Internet as a public utility is bad for consumers. The Washington Post, 7 July. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/07/why-treating-the-internet-as-a-public-utility-is-bad-for-consumers/

  • European Parliament News (2021) Social media and democracy: we need laws, not platform guidelines. European Parliament News, 10 Feb. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20210204STO97129/social-media-and-democracy-we-need-laws-not-platform-guidelines/

  • Fazekas J (2020) Médiaigazgatás (Media administration). In: Lapsánszky A (ed) Közigazgatási jog: Szakigazgatásaink elmélete és működése (Administrative law: the theory and functioning of our specialised administrations). Wolters Kluwer, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House (FH) (2021) Freedom on the Net 2021. The Global Drive to Control Big Tech. 16 Sep. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/FOTN_2021_Complete_Booklet_09162021_FINAL_UPDATED.pdf

  • Friedmann D (2014) Sinking the safe harbour with the legal certainty of strict liability in sight. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 9(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Galewska E (2021) Zwalczanie nielegalnych treści zamieszczanych przez użytkownik w platform internetowych – kierunek regulacji Unii Europejskiej (Combating illegal content posted by the user on online platforms - the direction of European Union regulation). In: Flaga-Gieruszyńska K, Gołaczyński J (eds) Prawo nowych technologii (The law of new technologies). Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorwa R (2019) The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Rev 8(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosztonyi G, Huszár D (2022) Az anonim kommentelés aktuális jogi megítélése az Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága és az Ausztrál Legfelsőbb Bíróság gyakorlata alapján (Current legal assessment of anonymous commenting based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Australian Supreme Court). In Medias Res 11(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurri M (2018) The revolt of the public and the crisis of authority in the new millennium. Stripe Press, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraszti M (1991) A cenzúra esztétikája (The aesthetics of censorship). Magvető Kiadó, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Helberger N, Pierson J, Poell T (2018) Governing online platforms: from contested to cooperative responsibility. Inf Soc 34(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertig Randall M (2016) Freedom of expression in the Internet. Swiss Rev Int Eur Law 26(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Horváth K (2021) Digital Services Act. In CMS: Digital Horizons. A series of reports exploring CEE’s digital future. CMS. https://cms.law/en/media/local/cms-cmno/files/publications/publications/cee-digital-horizon-report-data-centres/

  • Jain S, Variath AA (2020) Internet shutdowns and virtual curfews: searching for rights in digital darkness. J Hum Rights Pract 4(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye D (2019) Speech Police. The global struggle to govern the internet. Columbia Global Reports, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keller D, Leerssen P (2020) Facts and where to find them: empirical research on internet platforms and content moderation. In: Persily N, Tucker JA (eds) Social media and democracy. The state of the field, prospects for reform. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Klonick K (2020) The Facebook Oversight Board: creating an independent institution to adjudicate online free expression. Yale Law J 129(2418)

    Google Scholar 

  • Koebler J, Cox J (2018) The impossible job: inside Facebook’s struggle to moderate two billion people. Vice, 23 Aug. https://www.vice.com/en/article/xwk9zd/how-facebook-content-moderation-works/

  • Kokoly Z (2021) Audiovisual media regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic – measures undertaken by the Romanian authorities during the state of emergency. Acta Univ Sapientiae Leg Stud 10(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Koltay A (2017) Az internetes kapuőrök és az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményének 10. cikke – a sajtószabadság új alanyai (Internet gatekeepers and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the new subjects of press freedom). Állam- és Jogtudomány 58(4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosseff J (2017) Twenty years of intermediary immunity: the US experience. SCRIPTed 14(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lénárd S (2021) Kié az utolsó szó? A Facebook Ellenőrző Bizottság döntésének margójára (Who has the last word? In the margins of the Facebook Oversight Board decision). Ludovika Blog, 25 May. https://www.ludovika.hu/blogok/frontierblog/2021/05/25/kie-az-utolso-szo/

  • Lessig L (1999) Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (2006) Code 2.0. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • LSE Truth, Trust & Technology Commission (LSETTTC) (2018) Tackling the information crisis. The London School of Economics and Political Science, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mao F (2021) Australia media can be sued for social media comments, court rules. BBC News, 8 Sep. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58484205/

  • Maroni M (2019) A Court’s Gotta Do, What a Court’s Gotta Do. An analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the liability of internet intermediaries through systems theory. European University Institute Working Paper RSCAS, 20

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schönberger V, Ramge T (2018) Reinventing capitalism in the age of big data. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton C (2021) Mark in the Metaverse. Facebook’s CEO on why the social network is becoming ‘a metaverse company’. The Verge, 22 July. https://www.theverge.com/22588022/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-ceo-metaverse-interview/

  • Noorlander P (2021) UNESCO Guide for Amicus Curiae interventions in freedom of expression cases. CI-2021/FEJ/G-1. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Öhman C, Aggarwal N (2020) What if Facebook goes down? Ethical and legal considerations for the demise of big tech. Internet Policy Rev 9(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) (2011) Freedom of expression on the Internet. 15 Dec. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/f/80723.pdf

  • Oster J (2015a) Media freedom as a fundamental right. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oster J (2015b) Communication, defamation and liability of intermediaries. Leg Stud 35(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Park K (2013) Facebook used takedown and it was super effective! Finding a framework for protecting user rights of expression on social networking. N Y Univ Annu Surv Am Law 68(4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Polyák G (2020) A forgalomirányító szolgáltatások médiaszabályozási kérdései (Media regulation issues for traffic management services). In: Polyák G (ed) Algoritmusok, keresők, közösségi oldalak és a jog: A forgalomirányító szolgáltatások szabályozása (Algorithms, search engines, social networking sites and the law: regulating traffic management services). HVG-ORAC Lap- és Könyvkiadó Kft, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto

    Google Scholar 

  • Puddephatt A (2021) Letting the sun shine in. Transparency and accountability in the digital age. CI-2021/WTR/5. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet

    Google Scholar 

  • Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Internet Freedom

    Google Scholar 

  • Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez S (2021) Biden on Facebook: ‘They’re killing people’ with vaccine misinformation. CNBC, 16 July. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/16/white-house-says-facebook-needs-to-do-more-to-fight-vaccine-misinformation.html/

  • Sanders B (2021) Democratic disruption in the age of social media: between marketized and structural conceptions of human rights law. Eur J Int Law 32(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor G (2017) Providers liability: from the eCommerce Directive to the future. In-depth analysis for the Directorate-General for Internal Policies. European Parliament, Strasbourg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon B (2014) Facebook buys Oculus, virtual reality gaming startup, for $2 billion. Forbes, 25 March. https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2014/03/25/facebook-buys-oculus-virtual-reality-gaming-startup-for-2-billion/

  • Suzor NP (2019) Lawless. The secret rules that govern our digital lives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szigeti T, Simon É (2016) A hozzászólás szabadsága: a közvetítő szolgáltatói felelősség aktuális kérdéseiről (Freedom to comment: on current issues of intermediary service provider liability). Fundamentum 20(2-4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Szőke GL (2021) A közösségi oldalak szabályozási problémái (Regulatory problems on social networking sites). In: Kis Kelemen B, Mohay Á (eds) A technológiai fejlődés jogi kihívásai: Kézikönyv a jogalkotás és jogalkalmazás számára (Legal challenges of technological development: a handbook for lawmakers and practitioners). Pécsi Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar, Pécs

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambini D, Leonardi D, Marsden C (2008) Codifying cyberspace. Communications self-regulation in the age of internet convergence. Routledge, London – New York

    Google Scholar 

  • The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information: Twentieth anniversary joint declaration: challenges to freedom of expression in the next decade. 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/JointDeclaration10July2019_English.pdf

  • Török B (2021) Platforms and fundamental rights. Hung Conserv 1(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tusikov N (2017) Chokepoints. Global private regulation on the internet. University of California Press, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2023) Safeguarding freedom of expression and access to information: guidelines fora multistakeholder approach in the context of regulating digital platforms. CI-FEJ/FOEO/3 Rev

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (2011) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. UN Doc A/HRC/17/27

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (2021) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. UN Doc A/HRC/47/24/Add.2

    Google Scholar 

  • West SM (2019) Data capitalism: redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Bus Soc 58(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Worldometer (2022) How many countries are there in the world? https://www.worldometers.info/geography/how-many-countries-are-there-in-the-world/

  • Wu P (2015) Impossible to regulate? Social media, terrorists, and the role for the U.N. Chic J Int Law 16(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yen AC (2020) Revisiting the Western Frontier. IDEA – The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property 60(1)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest, Hungary

    Gergely Gosztonyi

Authors
  1. Gergely Gosztonyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gosztonyi, G. (2023). Possible Directions for the Future. In: Censorship from Plato to Social Media. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 61. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46529-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46529-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46528-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-46529-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation