izpis_h1_title_alt

Odgovornost upravljavca spletnega družbenega omrežja za razširjanje lažnih novic
ID Oprčkal, Gregor (Author), ID Zagorc, Saša (Mentor) More about this mentor... This link opens in a new window

.pdfPDF - Presentation file, Download (1,32 MB)
MD5: 8105D867A8A342A0942F36CE931A96C6

Abstract
Poglavitni danosti pričujočega besedila sta opredelitev lažne novice in primerjalnopravni oris odgovornosti upravitelja spletnega družbenega omrežja za protipravno vsebino svojega uporabnika. Izhodiščna teza je, da so lažne novice »resničen« družbeni pojav, ki potrebuje strokovno opredelitev. Lažna novica v širšem (sensu lato) je neresnična navedba o dejstvu, ki je vede posredovana tako, da daje vtis, da gre za resnično novico verodostojnega medija. Ustanovitvena sestavina lažne novice je, da slepi tako po svoji vsebini kot po svoji obliki. Lažna novica v ožjem (sensu stricto) je lažna novica v širšem, ki izpolnjuje zakonske znake enega ali več že obstoječih protipravnih ravnanj - t. i. kazniva lažna novica (npr. obrekovanje, sovražni govor, neresnično poročanje o nevarnosti itd.). Odgovornost je razumljena kot sveženj obveznosti (skladnostna pravila), ki jih ima upravitelj družbenega omrežja v razmerju do nezakonite vsebine svojega uporabnika, kršitev katerih se lahko odraža bodisi v civilni bodisi v kazenski odgovornosti (internetna posredniška odgovornost). Nadaljna hipoteza je, da ima upravljavec družbena omrežja praviloma odgovornost zgolj za že kaznive lažne novice (sensu stricto), saj obravnavani pravni redi samostojne inkriminacije lažnih novic ne poznajo (sensu lato). Pravo ZDA, z izjemo avtorskega prava, odvezuje družbeno omrežje sleherne odgovornosti. Še več, upravitelj lahko v dobri veri briše tudi zakonito vsebino (privilegij dobrega Samarijana). Pravo EU in sodna praksa ESČP narekujeta takojšen izbris vsebine ob zavedanju njene protipravnosti (»notice-and-take-down«). Nemško pravo ureja svojevrsten režim odgovornosti izključno za družbena omrežja. Očitno protipravna vsebina mora biti izbrisana ali odstranjena v 24 urah po seznanitvi, sicer protipravna v 7 dneh.

Language:Slovenian
Keywords:lažna novica, družbeno omrežje, svoboda izražanja, test sorazmernosti, internetna posredniška odgovornost, Communication Decency Act (CDA), klavzula dobrega Samarijana, Direktiva o elektronskem poslovanju, Evropska konvencija o človekovih pravicah
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Year:2019
PID:20.500.12556/RUL-106022 This link opens in a new window
COBISS.SI-ID:16579665 This link opens in a new window
Publication date in RUL:16.01.2019
Views:2063
Downloads:578
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
:
Copy citation
Share:Bookmark and Share

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:The liability of the social network provider for dissemination of fake news
Abstract:
The salient contributions of the following text are the definition of fake news and the comparative analysis of the liability of the social network provider for the unlawful content provided by third person. The preliminary statement of the thesis is that fake news is a “real” social pheonomenon that needs a scientific definition. Fake news in the broader sense (sensu lato) is a false statement of fact, which is knowingly disseminated in a manner, that by the way of its appearance suggests the conveyance of real news of trusted media. The founding element of fake news is that misleads by both – its content and appearance. Fake news in the narrow sense (sensu stricto) is fake news in the broader sense that fulfills the legal elements of one or more pre-existing unlawful acts – the so-called punishable fake news (e.g. defamation, hate speech, false reporting etc.). Liability is understood as a set of duties (compliance rules) the social network provider has towards the unlawful content of its users. Breach of those obligations may result either in civil or criminal liability (intermediary liability). The further hypothesis is that, in principle, the social network provider has liability only for punishable fake news (sensu stricto), since in the legal orders at stake the unique criminalization of fake news is unknown (sensu lato).US law, with the exception of copyright law, immunizes social networks of any liability. Moreover, the provider may in good faith delete even lawful content (the Good Samaritan clause). EU law and ECHR case-law demand expeditious deletion or removal upon the knowledge of its illegality (»notice-and-take-down«). German law regulates a unique liability scheme, exclusively for social networks. The obviously unlawful content has to be erased or blocked in 24 hours upon the notification, the unlawful content in 7 days.

Keywords:fake news, social network, freedom of expression, strict scrutiny, intermediary liability, Communication Decency Act (CDA), the Good Samaritan clause, E-Commerce Directive, European Convention on Human Rights, Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG)

Similar documents

Similar works from RUL:
Similar works from other Slovenian collections:

Back