BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Facebook may be purchased at the police department, and the removal of illegal content, global Europe’s highest court said on Thursday, in a landmark ruling, which rights activists say that raises concerns that some countries might be able to use it in order to silence the critics.
FILE PHOTO: A 3-D-printed with Facebook logo is seen in front of binary code in this picture illustration, the 18th of June, 2019 at the latest. REUTERS/dado Ruvic/Image/File Photo
The ruling will mean social platforms, it may be forced to look for hateful speech against protected groups deemed to be illegal by a national court, the 28-nation bloc, instead of waiting for the requests to delete the messages when it is not in accordance with the EU rules and regulations.
Facebook and other platforms can also be made in order to comply with the requests to take the content throughout the world, even in countries where it is not prohibited, the Luxembourg-based Court of justice of the court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled.
The ruling came just a week after the court said that it does not apply Europe’s “right to be forgotten” law in the global, and the gain of the glory of the freedom of expression of lawyers, as judges, to try and figure out just how much of the responsibility for, the content, the platforms to make them.
“EU law does not get in the way of a host service provider, such as Facebook, are ordered to remove the same, may, in certain circumstances, similar observations have previously been declared to be illegal,” the Court said in a statement.
“In addition, the EU law does not preclude such a facility from the production of securities, globally, and within the framework of international law.”
Facebook slammed the decision, saying that it is not the role of the social platforms and to monitor, interpret it, and then delete the speech may be illegal in a particular country.
“It undermines the well-established principle that a country does not have the right to the enforcement of the laws relating to the address in a different country. It also opens the door to the obligations that may be imposed on the internet companies, pro-active management of the content, and then it will be interpreted as the ‘equivalent’ of content that is illegal,” the company said.
“For the national court to be very clear definitions of what is ‘the same’ and ‘equal’ means in practice. It is hoped that the court, in a proportionate and measured approach, in order to prevent a chilling effect on freedom of opinion and expression.”
UK rights group, Article 19, supported to Facebook, saying it would lead to the social platforms of installation of automated filters to screen the content.
“It would be a dangerous precedent in which the courts of one country to determine what users want from the internet in a different country to be able to see it. It would have been in order, in particular, regimes with low human rights records,” said executive director Thomas Hughes said.
Facebook is in the dock after the Eve Glawisching-Piesczek, then-chairman of the Greens parliamentary group in Austria, called on the company in an Austrian court, the question of the removal of defamatory comments posted by a user to and removal from the action.
Glawischnig’s lawyer, Maria Windhager, welcomed the decision.
“The COURT is taking a position on this issue, that is to say, you will need to create and strengthen the mechanisms for enforcement of rights,” she said to the Austrian broadcaster ORF.
“It’s over, there will be less hate-post (after the decision) at all, but more about raising awareness that we will successfully be able to defend against it, and that it is going to be used, and that this will strengthen all of us in the fight against online hate speech.”
The European Commission has said that the decision was limited to the court orders and does not apply to the broader complaints of the users, and claimed that some of the content is illegal.
The decision of the court of appeal is the final decision in the case of the C-18/18-Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited.
Additional reporting by Jan Strupczewski in Brussels, Francois Murphy in Vienna; editing by John Stonestreet and Elaine Hardcastle