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 that rights advocates say could lead to authoritarian rule 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 decision 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 be.
The ruling by the Luxembourg-based Court of justice of the court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), said that Facebook could have, in order to comply with requests to take down the content worldwide, subject to certain conditions.
“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 that it could affect online freedom of expression around the world.
“Engaging with social media platforms like Facebook to automatically delete e-mail messages, regardless of their context in violation of our right to free speech, to limit the information that we have online to be able to see it,” executive director Thomas Hughes said.
He said that this could lead to cases in which a court in one country demands the removal of social media posts in a foreign country, even if it’s not illegal in that country.
“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,” he said.
The European Commission has said that the decision was limited to the court orders and does not relate to any other form of communication to the users, who claimed that some of the content is illegal.
Facebook is in the dock after the Eve Glawisching-Piesczek, chairman of the Green parliamentary group in Austria, called on the company in an Austrian court, the question of the removal of a comment posted by a user who said they did in her glory, and the removal of the same amounts.
The Austrian court then sought guidance from the european COURT of justice.
In the case of the C-18/18-Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited,
Reporting By Jan Strupczewski; editing by John Stonestreet and Elaine Hardcastle