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

29 Pages Posted: 5 Jun 2019

Date Written: May 17, 2019

Abstract

This paper explores recent developments in the liability of internet intermediaries for user-generated content at the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Delfi v Estonia (2015) and MTE v Hungary (2016). Regulatory approaches towards the liability of internet intermediaries raise the complex question of the kind of Internet that law should contribute to designing. For example, should law create a more regulated but less free environment? Moreover, should internet intermediaries decide on human rights standards, such as freedom of expression? Drawing on the systems theory concept of autopoiesis, this paper demonstrates how the answer to these questions might be inherently connected to the performativity of law. In this analysis, particular attention is then paid to the question of anonymity and how it might challenge the role of law in granting remedies.

Keywords: Internet Intermediaries; Liability; Legal Arguments; Autopoiesis; Freedom of Expression

Suggested Citation

Maroni, Marta, 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 (May 17, 2019). Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. 2019/20 . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3389857 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3389857

Marta Maroni (Contact Author)

University of Helsinki ( email )

University of Helsinki
Helsinki, FIN-00014
Finland

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
5
Abstract Views
91
PlumX Metrics