{"id":364,"date":"2024-06-25T16:55:19","date_gmt":"2024-06-25T15:55:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?post_type=publication&#038;p=364"},"modified":"2024-06-25T16:57:10","modified_gmt":"2024-06-25T15:57:10","slug":"intermediary-liability","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"Intermediary Liability"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Intermediary liability occurs when governments or private litigants can hold technological intermediaries, such as ISPs and websites, liable for unlawful or harmful content created by users of those services.[footnote]Alex Comninos, \u2018The liability of internet intermediaries in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda: An uncertain terrain\u2019 (2012) (accessible at https:\/\/www.apc.org\/sites\/default\/files\/READY &#8211; Intermediary Liability in Africa_FINAL_0.pdf) at p 6.[\/footnote] This can occur in various circumstances, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>copyright infringements;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>digital piracy, trademark disputes;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>network management;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>spamming and phishing;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>cybercrime<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>defamation;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>hate speech;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>child sexual exploitation material;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>illegal content;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>offensive but legal content;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>censorship;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>broadcasting and telecommunications laws and regulations; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>privacy protection.[footnote]<em>Id<\/em>.[\/footnote]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A report published by UNESCO identifies the following challenges facing intermediaries:[footnote]Rebecca MacKinnon et al, \u2018Fostering freedom online: The orle of internet intermediaries\u2019 (203) (accessible at https:\/\/unesdoc.unesco.org\/ark:\/48223\/pf0000231162_eng) at pp 179-180.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Limiting the liability of intermediaries for content published or transmitted by third parties is essential to the flourishing of internet services that facilitate expression.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Laws, policies, and regulations requiring intermediaries to carry out content restriction, blocking, and filtering in many jurisdictions are not sufficiently compatible with international human rights standards for freedom of expression.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Laws, policies, and practices related to government surveillance and data collection from intermediaries, when insufficiently compatible with human rights norms, impede intermediaries\u2019 ability to adequately protect users\u2019 privacy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whereas due process generally requires that legal enforcement and decision-making are transparent and publicly accessible, governments are frequently opaque about requests to companies for content restriction, the handover of user data, and other surveillance requirements.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There is general agreement that insulating intermediaries from liability for content generated by others protects the right to freedom of expression online. Such insulation can be achieved either through a system of absolute immunity from liability, or a regime that only fixes intermediaries with liability following their refusal to obey an order from a court or other competent body to remove the impugned content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As to the latter, the 2011 Joint Declaration provides that intermediaries should only be liable for third-party content when they specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey an order adopted in accordance with due process guarantees by an independent, impartial, authoritative oversight body (such as a court) to remove it.[footnote]See above n 47at paras 2(a)-(b).[\/footnote] The African Declaration provides in Principle 39 that states should not require internet intermediaries to \u201cproactively monitor content which they have not authored or otherwise modified\u201d and to ensure that in moderating online content human rights safeguards are mainstreamed and all such decisions are transparently made with the possibilities for appeals and other remedies. It further provides that where law enforcement agencies request the immediate removal of online content because it poses an imminent risk of harm, such requests should be subject to judicial review.[footnote]See above n 44 at Principle 39.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Jurisprudence around the world<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While questions around intermediary liability have not yet been thoroughly considered by courts in Africa, a substantial body of jurisprudence is building up in other regions of the world, particularly Europe, Latin America, and India. For example, in 2023 the <strong>Malaysian<\/strong> Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) announced that it would take legal action against Meta for what it saw as a failure to promptly remove content deemed harmful.[footnote]Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, \u2018Non-cooperation to remove undesirable contents from its platform: MCMC to take legal action against Meta\u2019 (2023) (accessible at https:\/\/www.mcmc.gov.my\/en\/media\/press-releases\/non-cooperation-to-remove-undesirable-contents-fro).[\/footnote] This reportedly included matters related to race, royalty, religion, and instances of defamation, impersonation, online gambling, and fraudulent advertisements. Digital rights advocates argued that the MCMC\u2019s threat of legal action against a social media platform for its content moderation decisions poses a potential risk to intermediary liability principles and online freedom of expression.[footnote]ARTICLE 19 \u2018Malaysia: Halt legal action against Meta over content moderation\u2019 (2023) (accessible at https:\/\/www.article19.org\/resources\/malaysia-halt-legal-action-against-meta\/).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The <strong>European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> (ECtHR) has considered intermediary liability in several cases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In <em>Delfi AS v Estonia<\/em>, the ECtHR examined the liability of an internet news portal for offensive comments posted by readers on its website.[footnote]Application No. 64569\/09, 10 October 2013 (accessible at httsp:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng?i=001-155105).[\/footnote] The ECtHR ruled that holding the portal liable did not violate its right to freedom of expression, as the comments were highly offensive, the portal failed to prevent their publication, profited from them, and allowed anonymity for their authors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In M<em>agyar Tartalomszolg\u00e1ltat\u00f3k Egyes\u00fclete and Index.hu Zrt v Hungary<\/em>, the ECtHR addressed the liability of an internet news portal and a self-regulatory body for vulgar comments on their platforms.[footnote]Application No 22947\/13, 2 February 2016 (accessible at https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng?i=001-160314).[\/footnote] While recognizing the duty of internet news portals to assume responsibilities, the ECtHR found that the comments did not constitute unlawful speech, upholding the right to freedom of expression.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In <em>Sanchez v France<\/em>, the ECtHR departed from its previous decisions on imposing liability on social media users for third party content.[footnote]Sanchez v. France (45581\/15) (2023) (accessible at https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/sanchez-v-france-gc\/#:~:text=Decision Direction&amp;text=Mixed Outcome-,The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights,\u201cwall\u201d posted by others.).[\/footnote] Sanchez, a French politician, was fined by a French domestic court for failing to remove hateful comments against the Muslim community from his Facebook wall. Before the ECtHR, Sanchez argued that this fine violated his right to freedom of expression by requiring him to bare the disproportionate burden of monitoring all comments posted on his open and public Facebook wall. The Court ultimately held that Sanchez\u2019s right to freedom of expression had not been violated \u2013 France had interfered with it in a lawful and necessary manner, in a democratic society and to pursue a legitimate aim. It held that it was not disproportionate to attribute liability to all actors involved, including Sanchez for failing to take action in relation to blatantly discriminatory comments. Importantly, the Court held that Sanchez\u2019s duty to act reasonably was greater in his capacity as a politician.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Other courts have taken more definitive positions in respect of intermediary liability. For example, the Supreme Court of <strong>India <\/strong>has interpreted the domestic law to only provide for intermediary liability where an intermediary has received actual knowledge from a court order, or where an intermediary has been notified by the government that one of the unlawful acts prescribed under the law are going to be committed and the intermediary has subsequently failed to remove or disable access to such information.[footnote]<em>Shreya Singhal v Union of India<\/em>, Application No. 167\/2012 (accessible at https:\/\/www.livelaw.in\/summary-of-the-judgment-in-shreya-singhal-vs-union-of-india-read-the-judgment\/).at paras 112-118.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Furthermore, the Supreme Court of <strong>Argentina<\/strong> has held that search engines are under no duty to monitor the legality of third-party content to which they link, noting that only in exceptional cases involving \u201cgross and manifest harm\u201d could intermediaries be required to disable access.[footnote]<em>Mar\u00eda Bel\u00e9n Rodriguez v Google<\/em>, Fallo R.522.XLIX (accessible at http:\/\/www.stf.jus.br\/repositorio\/cms\/portalStfInternacional\/newsletterPortalInternacionalJurisprudencia\/anexo\/Fallo_R.522.XLIX__Corte_Suprema_da_Argentina__28_oct._2014.pdf[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Non-consensual dissemination of intimate images<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case of the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images (NCII), provides a challenge with regard to questions of intermediary liability. Courts around the world have frequently ordered the immediate and unequivocal removal of such content from online platforms, citing the significant and adverse consequences on victims\u2019 and survivors\u2019 rights to privacy and dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The High Court of Delhi, <strong>India,<\/strong> for example, ordered that intermediaries must remove all offending content from their platform in the case of NCII and not just the specific links provided by victims. The Court highlighted the damage caused by the posting of NCIIs and how victims being required to search the internet for new uploads for the purpose of requesting their removal can cause further trauma.[footnote]<em>Mrs X v. Union of India<\/em> (2023) (accessible at https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/mrs-x-v-union-of-india\/).[\/footnote]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In an earlier case, the same Court ordered the immediate removal of content not only from the website on which it had been published, without consent but also ordered search engines to de-index the content from their search results, stressing the need for \u201cimmediate and efficacious\u201d remedies for victims of such cases.[footnote]<em>X v. Union of India<\/em> (2021) (accessible at https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/x-v-union-of-india\/).[\/footnote]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In light of the vital role played by intermediaries in promoting and protecting the right to freedom of expression online, it is imperative that they are safeguarded against unwarranted interference \u2014 by state and private actors \u2014 that could have a deleterious effect on the right. For example, as an individual\u2019s ability and freedom to exercise their right to freedom of expression online is dependent on the passive nature of online intermediaries, any legal regime that causes an intermediary to apply undue restraint or self-censorship toward content communicated through their services will ultimately have an adverse effect on the right to freedom of expression online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The UNSR has noted that intermediaries can serve as an important bulwark against government and private overreach, as they are usually, for instance, best-placed to push back on a shutdown.[footnote]UNHRC, \u2018Report of the UNSR on Freedom of Expression\u2019 (2017) (accessible at https:\/\/freedex.org\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/2015\/files\/2017\/05\/AHRC3522.pdf) at para 50.[\/footnote] However, this can only truly be realised in circumstances where intermediaries are able to do so without fear of sanction or penalties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At the same time, it is vital that appropriate remedies are established for the removal of illegal or harmful content, and that powerful private platforms are held accountable for the decisions they make with regard to moderating content in the digital sphere, where such decisions may infringe on the rights to freedom of expression and access to information.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Intermediary liability occurs when governments or private litigants can hold technological intermediaries, such as ISPs and websites, liable for unlawful or harmful content created by users of those services.[footnote]Alex Comninos, \u2018The liability of internet intermediaries in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda: An uncertain terrain\u2019 (2012) (accessible at https:\/\/www.apc.org\/sites\/default\/files\/READY &#8211; Intermediary Liability in Africa_FINAL_0.pdf) at [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":346,"menu_order":227,"template":"page-templates\/chapter.php","publication-category":[],"class_list":["post-364","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Intermediary Liability | eReader<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Intermediary liability is when technological intermediaries are held liable for unlawful or harmful content created by users of those services.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Intermediary Liability | eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Intermediary liability is when technological intermediaries are held liable for unlawful or harmful content created by users of those services.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-06-25T15:57:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\\\/intermediary-liability\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\\\/intermediary-liability\\\/\",\"name\":\"Intermediary Liability | eReader\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-25T15:55:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-06-25T15:57:10+00:00\",\"description\":\"Intermediary liability is when technological intermediaries are held liable for unlawful or harmful content created by users of those services.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\\\/intermediary-liability\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\\\/intermediary-liability\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\\\/intermediary-liability\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Publications\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Summary Modules on Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online in sub-Saharan Africa\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Module 3: Access to the Internet\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":5,\"name\":\"Intermediary Liability\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\",\"name\":\"eReader\",\"description\":\"Media Defence\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Intermediary Liability | eReader","description":"Intermediary liability is when technological intermediaries are held liable for unlawful or harmful content created by users of those services.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Intermediary Liability | eReader","og_description":"Intermediary liability is when technological intermediaries are held liable for unlawful or harmful content created by users of those services.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/","og_site_name":"eReader","article_modified_time":"2024-06-25T15:57:10+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/","name":"Intermediary Liability | eReader","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-06-25T15:55:19+00:00","dateModified":"2024-06-25T15:57:10+00:00","description":"Intermediary liability is when technological intermediaries are held liable for unlawful or harmful content created by users of those services.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/intermediary-liability\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Publications","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Summary Modules on Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online in sub-Saharan Africa","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Module 3: Access to the Internet","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-3-access-to-the-internet\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Intermediary Liability"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/","name":"eReader","description":"Media Defence","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/346"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-category?post=364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}