The same Advocate General concluded that

[ritu500]

Europe has taken a much tougher stance against the internet giants than many other countries in the world, for which many would criticise it. And frankly, they would be right. What right does Europe have to impose its views on free speech principles on other territories? Why should their approach be considered more appropriate than any other? This is not the first time that Europe has crossed the line. Europe had the right to force Google to remove archived listings of some news items globally last year. In this case, two businessmen had been convicted of criminal offences but argued that the cases should be de-indexed as they served their sentences and there was a risk that if the cases were discovered they would impact on future employment.



This is a slightly dubai email list different case, as the “right to be forgotten” saga with Google relies on privacy principles and the fact that the two people in question were “exonerated.” The difficulty with Glawischnig is that it relies on the legal definition of defamation, which can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Along with the implications for free speech, it also forces Facebook to become a more active moderator of the content that is published on its platform. This is where Facebook has been able to dodge a lot of the punches over the last decade; it is not a publisher, so it should not be responsible for the opinions and governance of those opinions that are published on its platform.



Facebook has chosen to be a curator and platform provider, avoiding the term “publisher” because that would imply that it has more influence and control than it wants. The selling point of many social media platforms is that it is “unmoderated” content. Users can put whatever they want online. In the early days, this freedom democratized opinion, although there are now elements of society that use the platforms in ways that are considered nefarious or contrary to social good. Not only does Facebook want to avoid the hassle and legal complications of becoming a more active content moderator, it wants to stay true to the original function of the platform; the freedom to do and say whatever the user wants.