Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

States increasingly delegate regulatory and police functions to internet intermediaries. This may lead to interference with the right to freedom of expression. In a time when these issues are of particular relevance, 'Intermediary liability and freedom of expression in the EU' provides the reader with a framework to protect the freedom of expression in an online world.

Human rights --- Computer. Automation --- European Union --- Freedom of expression --- Internet --- Liability (Law) --- Liberté d'expression --- Responsabilité (droit) --- Fournisseurs de services Internet --- Law and legislation --- Droit --- liberté d'expression --- internet --- communicatie --- regelgeving --- vrije meningsuiting --- BPB9999 --- communication --- réglementation --- E-books --- Responsabilité (Droit) --- Liberté d'expression --- Responsabilité (droit)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Human rights --- Industrial and intellectual property --- Computer. Automation

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Journalism --- Public law. Constitutional law --- Industrial and intellectual property --- Law --- Mass communications --- journalistieke deontologie --- mediarecht --- journalistiek --- Belgium

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This dissertation revolves around the impact of the legal requirement to install content filters on the right to freedom of speech of intermediaries. To this end, Article 17 of the recently adopted Copyright Directive will play a central role. The body of the dissertation starts with a general overview of the Digital Single Market Strategy and internet intermediary liability, followed by a discussion specifying automated content filters and copyright and how Article 17 affects the pre-existing e-Commerce Directive's horizontal liability regime. The Copyright Directive creates a vertical intermediary liability regime in copyright by dismantling application of the e-Commerce Directive's safe harbor protection while stating that intermediaries whose services are used to upload infringing content, will in principle be considered as if they performed the "act of communication to the public" themselves. This places intermediaries in a precarious position where they can be held directly liable for the actions of their services’ users, raising the question whether and in what capacity intermediaries can invoke the right to freedom of speech, both under the EU and ECHR, to defend against liability claims. In the conclusion, alternative developments to intermediary liability regulation are suggested, without the requirement of implementing content filters, and without dismantling the cornerstone safe harbor provisions of the e-Commerce Directive’s liability regime. These alternatives draw from academic views and are compared with US intermediary regulation.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In today’s digitally driven society, challenges of societal trust and verification of digital content are widespread. With a few technological steps, computer-generated content is developed. At first sight, this development may seem harmless and create opportunities in various industries. However, it incorporates several trade-offs. One of those trade-offs is deepfake non-consensual pornography, which grew exponentially in 2017 after a Reddit user created tailormade synthetic pornographic content of female celebrities. Deepfake pornography is a very damaging type of non-consensual image distribution, however not a new type of non-consensual image distribution. It is a long-standing phenomenon affecting individuals with sexualised photoshopping. However, a significant manifestation is that now pornographic content can be easily made and customised. The simple generation, accessibility, and endless online sharing of deepfake pornography therefore severely impacts the private life and the concept of consent. The personal life of the victim is exposed to public scrutiny without their permission, inducing psychological and reputational impairment, even if the content has poor quality. A crucial point is that the majority of deepfakes are synthetic sexual content of women, disproportionately affecting them and emphasising the gendered dimension of the phenomenon. Therefore, several questions arise when assessing whether current legal landscape effectively approach the non-consensual creation and distribution of synthetic sexual content. Does the GDPR, DSA and the EU AI Act give prospects for the victim, or does it leave them more helpless? Do national criminal laws capture deepfake pornography adequately? And if there is no adequate national legal framework will the European Court of Human Rights, as the pioneer in combating violence against women, decide that the State violated the victims’ human rights?