Freedom of Expression on the Internet after Sanchez v France: How the European Court of Human Rights Accepts Third-Party ‘Censorship’

What is it about?

_x000D_ In the landmark case Delfi v. Estonia, the European Court of Human_x000D_ Rights accepted in 2015 that a company, running a popular interactive_x000D_ website, can be sanctioned on account of the hateful content that_x000D_ (pseudo)anonymous users posted. The judgement was critically_x000D_ received, but the Court’s reasoning was defendable. In September 2021,_x000D_ the Court accepted as well the criminal conviction of a politician on_x000D_ account of comments posted by visitors on his Facebook timeline. The_x000D_ Court applies the Delfi reasoning to this new case (Sanchez v. France)._x000D_ In this contribution, it will be argued that the Strasbourg Court could not_x000D_ simply apply its reasoning in Delfi to the Sanchez case. By doing do, it_x000D_ under protects freedom of expression and it pays hardly any attention to_x000D_ the danger of third party private censorship (chilling effect). Relying on_x000D_ the separate opinion of judges Sajo’ and Tsotsoria in Delfi – who referred_x000D_ to the Belgian model of tiered liability for press offences – it will be_x000D_ argued that the Court should pay more attention to the idea of cascaded_x000D_ liability, in order to avoid “censorship” from third parties_x000D_ (intermediaries).

Featured Image