Restricting and blocking content on social media sites is an extremely difficult topic to consider. Not only do you risk alienating people by cracking down on what is considered offensive, but there is also the danger of infringing on free speech rights. Facebook has always tried to stay as far away from this complex conundrum as possible, but Szpunar’s opinion could offer a way to crack down on illegal content across Europe and make the social media giant more accountable.
“To date, Advocate General Makif Shpunar believes that the E-Commerce uae phone number library Directive does not exclude that a host provider that operates a social networking platform such as Facebook, in the context of an injunction, has been ordered to search for and identify, among all information disseminated by users of that platform, information identical to information that has been characterized as unlawful by the court that issued the injunction.”
Like most legal issues, this is a very complex and nuanced case, not only because it involves the intersection of freedoms and speech moderation, but also because social media platforms are incredibly complex machines. The new rules cannot be applied directly, especially when you consider that the platforms span multiple geographies, languages, and legal jurisdictions.
In short, Szpunar suggests that social networks could be forced to remove all content related to illegal content, and that the terms could apply to Facebook globally.
The case dates back to 2017 and a speech by Austrian Green Party member Eva Glawischnig. Glawischnig claimed that comments about her made on Facebook were defamatory, which an Austrian court agreed with, and Facebook was ordered to remove the posts. Facebook complied, but identical posts later appeared online, to which Galwischnig said the action should be extended to the entire platform, including the posts that were reprinted verbatim.
Further complaints were lodged with the European Court, which led to today's Szpunar opinion. It is worth noting that the Court is not bound to follow Szpunar's opinion, but in most cases it follows the opinion of the 11 appointed Advocates General.
According to Shpunar, Facebook may be required to continue to distribute the network, under the pretext of the lack of mandatory restrictions on social networks in all countries of the world, at the same time as the company will have to take more and more measures to remove identical content that has already been declared illegal by the courts.
Europe has taken a much tougher stance against the internet giants than many other countries in the world, for which many would criticise it. And frankly, they would be right. What right does Europe have to impose its views on free speech principles on other territories? Why should their approach be considered more appropriate than any other?
