Search

Search Results

• Censorship as a Tool Against State Disinformation: Media Freedom Implications of the Russian-Ukrainian War

  András Koltay

  Views:

  135

  Disinformation campaigns originating from Russia have been frequently debated in recent years. Disinformation also plays a major role in the Russian–Ukrainian war that started in February 2022. The issue has been on the agenda in the European Union in recent years, so it is not surprising that among the many sanctions the EU introduced against Russia, action against disinformation was also added. This paper sets out to describe the previously unprecedented ban on Russian media service providers, including the problems the provision creates for freedom of expression. In particular, it will examine the content of the Decision and the Regulation, which prohibited the distribution of the Russian media outlets concerned and the consequences of the EU legislation. It will then go on to critically analyse the provisions from the perspective of freedom of expression, and finally, the relevant judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

• Opinion or statement of fact?

  48-68

  László Pribula

  Views:

  273

  Press correction is a special way to defend personality rights on the basis of civil law. Its main objective is that if someone states or rumours a false fact or makes a fact appear untrue about a person in a given publication, the affected person has the right to submit his claim – as soon as possible – in order to have a rectifying communication be given out in the particular publication showing which part of the injurious publication states false, unfounded facts or makes a fact appear untrue and what is the reality. If the publisher does not satisfy its duty to correct the injurious publication voluntarily, the affected person – in a short period – has the right to enforce his claim for press correction in an accelerated judicial procedure which allows only restricted production of evidence.

  The most frequent question of the press correctional lawsuits is whether the content of the publication turns out to be a statement of fact or an opinion. The opinion, assessment, critique and debates about society, politics or art cannot serve as a basis for press correction. The statement of fact is a declaration about a given momentum of reality, the assertion or rumour that something has happened in a certain way or that something really exists. In opposition to the statement of fact, the opinion expresses a value judgement or critique, and false facts cannot be concluded from it even indirectly. It is hard to define on an objective basis if a declaration is a statement of fact or an opinion. As life creates a wide range of various situations, the developing legal interpretation by the judicial practice has a great impact especially as regards the distinction between a statement of fact and an opinion, the interpretation of the publication or the determination of the content and form of the press correction.

• Facebook files – is Hate Speech Deleted? The Human Rights As- pects of Content Control of Social Media Platforms

  115-136

  Krisztina Nagy

  Views:

  498

  The internet intermediaries, such as services like Google and Facebook became important actors who can influence the media supply through the personalised information flow tailored by their own algorithms and due to the content moderation of their own platforms. These services have exceeded their previous activities which were merely of an intermediary scope and this change affects substantially the fulfilment of international human rights standards. The article analysed first and foremost the operation of the internet intermediaries, especially of the social media platforms from the freedom of expression point of view. It seeks answers to the question to what extent does the moderation of the user generated content on the platforms, i.e. removing and blocking contents which do not comply with the terms and conditions of the platforms, comply with the requirements of the restriction of human rights. Based on the analysis of Facebook’s own regulatory framework, it evaluates content moderation activity on hate speech on the platform in the context of human rights. It points out the guarantees of human rights which are missing from the content control mechanisms of Facebook.