The Media Legal Defence Initiative has filed a brief with the European Court of Human Rights asking it to respect the principle that online media should not have to monitor the thousands of comments left on their sites by readers every day.
In an intervention in the much-debated case of Delfi v. Estonia, which was joined by 23 media organisations from around the world, MLDI asked the European Court to consider legal regimes under EU and US law, which exempt media from having to monitor their sites for offensive comments, and to take into account the sophisticated self-regulatory practices developed by the media to moderate such comments.
The case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court after an earlier ruling by the Court’s First Section in October 2013, which had held that Estonian news website Delfi was liable for defamatory comments from its users despite the fact that it had taken down the comments as soon as they had been notified of them. Delfi asked for this judgment to be referred to the Grand Chamber for a rehearing and MLDI had supported this request in a letter which had been joined by nearly 70 news outlets.
The brief that has now been submitted to the Grand Chamber by MLDI and its coalition partners underlines the important function of comment sections on websites: they generate debate on issues of public interest and have turned the media from a space where the news is merely reported to an online community where the news is reported and discussed. The flow of traffic in online media is no longer one-way: users can have their say and engage both journalists and other users in conversation on important topics of the day. This has made an important contribution to the realisation of the right to freedom of expression for all.
MLDI’s brief draws on comparative law and sets out best practices developed by online media over the past fifteen years in order to demonstrate that protection from liability for intermediaries is crucial to protect free speech online.
MLDI is grateful to the Media Law Resource Center, a co-signatory, and Professor Lorna Woods from the University of Essex School of Law for their drafting contributions
Recent News
Protecting Democracy Without Silencing Dissent: Media Defence submits written observations to the IACHR
On June 23, Media Defence submitted its written observations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in response to the request for an advisory opinion presented by the Republic of Guatemala on “Democracy and its Protection under the Inter-American System of Human Rights.” Media Defence addressed the essential role of freedom of expression in the […]
“Good information saves lives”: Lawyer & Journalist Nadine Kampire on Combatting Disinformation in the DRC
In the latest instalment of our Press Freedom Advocates Series – which highlights the stories of lawyers defending journalists worldwide – we speak to Nadine Kampire, a Congolese journalist and lawyer. Alongside her colleagues, Nadine co-founded Afia Amani Grands-Lacs, a media network focused on fact-checking and tackling disinformation and misinformation across the Great Lakes region. […]
‘The Real Danger is if we Let Fear Win’: Hungary’s Pride Ban and the Shrinking Space for Dissent
Update: This article was written prior to the Pride march on 28 June. The event marked a historic moment, becoming the largest Budapest Pride march to date, with over 200,000 people in attendance. We’ll be following up with Hegyi soon to reflect on the aftermath and explore whether the legal strategies discussed may evolve in […]