Why do we restrict the social media?

The risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, particularly the right to respect for private life, is certainly higher than that posed by the press. Therefore, the policies governing reproduction of material from the printed media and the Internet may differ. (para.63 EDITORIAL BOARD OF PRAVOYE DELO AND SHTEKEL v. UKRAINE) With regard to our case, there was a PSN for signing the SMS Charter considering the contribution of social media to the increase of violence. (para 4)

Murphy

The prohibition concerned only the audio-visual media. The State was, in the Court's view, entitled to be particularly wary of the potential for offence in the broadcasting context, such media being accepted by this Court (see paragraph 69) and acknowledged by the applicant, as having a more immediate, invasive and powerful impact including, as the Government and the High Court noted, on the passive recipient. He was consequently free to advertise the same matter in any of the print media (including local and national newspapers) and during public meetings and other assemblies.

Would in case of similar offence with the help of other media the Applicants be liable?

No, because such a restriction would not be prescribed by law.

69. Moreover, it is recalled that the potential impact of the medium of expression concerned is an important factor in the consideration of the proportionality of an interference. (Murphy v. Ireland - 1994, ECtHR)

The restriction is proportionate presently because the Applicants were able to impart his ideas through other media means which would not entail such a scope of audience and would not cause so disruptive effects.

What is provocation within the IL?

There is no expressed definition of that notion, however, we turn to the doctrine, in which it is stated that:

Conception of democracy reflected in the ECHR case-law condemns censoring of political views, however, doesn’t provide the reason to protect provocative expressions about non-political aspects of our lives that are not subject of collective and rational discussion.

(George Letsas)

International Clarifications

Why have anti-Saduja memes never led to any litigation?

According to list of complied Clarifications no one ever brought a claim.

In our case(para.13) it was Grand Parder (the highest religious figure of Parduism, 20Jan2014), who brought the letigatition and although, he is a State agent there are other religious leaders in Lydina whose salaries are paid by the government. The problem is that not all religious groups had state-paid leaders.

+ para.4: the recent uprise was expressed in the confirmed arson attempt in the home of the Parduist citizen – so it were not Sadujists who suffered

Does the SMS Charter attract civil or criminal consequences?

The SMS Charter prescribes legal liability, which is civil penalty.

Can the person uploading a video on DigiTube modify or delete the same?

Yes.

Date: 2016-01-05; view: 745