Research Handbook on EU Internet Law
Show Less

Research Handbook on EU Internet Law

Edited by Andrej Savin and Jan Trzaskowski

This innovative book provides an overview of the latest developments and controversies in European Internet law. It is grouped in sections that correspond to the most disputed areas, looking consecutively at policy and governance, copyright, private international law, E-commerce & consumer protection and citizens and their position on the Internet. More than a basic introduction. The authors go further than a basic introduction into the field, as they highlight the challenges that European law- and policy-makers face when attempting to regulate the Internet.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 21: Free speech, defamation and the limits to freedom of expression in the EU: a comparative analysis

Oreste Pollicino and Marco Bassini


In the recent case Delfi v Estonia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was asked to review whether ordering an Internet news portal to pay damages for defamatory comments posted by users that the website had failed to promptly remove constituted a restriction of freedom of expression. How would the Strasbourg judges have decided the case if the same events had occurred in a ‘non digital environment’? What would have been the outcome if the same case had been brought before the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) or a US court? Also in light of these questions, the case seems to be a good starting point for the complexity of freedom of expression in the age of the Internet to emerge and for exploring how the new technologies have made it necessary to rethink its protection. In Delfi, the ECtHR found that art. 10 of the Convention does not afford protection to freedom of expression in absolute terms. Rather, art. 10 allows Contracting States to interfere with the exercise of this right provided that the said restrictions meet the conditions under para. 2, that is, (i) they are prescribed by law, (ii) they have a legitimate aim and (iii) they are necessary in a democratic society. What it is important to highlight is that the ECtHR, on one hand, considered that the legislation at stake posed a significant restriction, whereas, on the other, found that nevertheless the same did not amount to a violation of art. 10.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.