4 ms·

Yeah but requiring a notice-and-takedown approach is quite reasonable. This is the equivalent of all EU countries being legally allowed to ban free speech on th

Yeah but requiring a notice-and-takedown approach is quite reasonable. This is the equivalent of all EU countries being legally allowed to ban free speech on the Internet at a national level, if desired. Yeah, its not "changing anything" but its tantamount to admitting that Estonia is not a functioning democracy that respects fundamental human rights like free speech....and that it is OKAY for the EU.

arrrg 11y ago
The zeal with which some people view free speech is really quite adorable. I don’t think it’s really so important. (It is important, sure, just not that important. And limiting free speech is certain a-ok with me, within limits.)
- fweespeech 11y ago
  Very well. Stop posting completely on HN because HN is now liable even if it takes down hate speech within 24 hours of notification if it was run by an Estonian and/or had connections to Estonia [say via e-Residency]. Its cute how people are ready to sell other groups of people down the river without accepting the broader implications.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  That's a horrible, immoral ideology you have there, but I'll defend your right to spew it.
Xylakant 11y ago
You're pretty harsh with your judgement. The decision stipulates that a fine of 320 EUR for a large commercial provider in a case where it took weeks to take down extreme occurrences of hate speech does not violate fundamental human rights. The relevant quote from the judgement: Based on the concrete assessment of the above aspects, taking into account the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the present case, in particular the extreme nature of the comments in question, the fact that the comments were posted in reaction to an article published by the applicant company on its professionally managed news portal run on a commercial basis, the insufficiency of the measures taken by the applicant company to remove without delay after publication comments amounting to hate speech and speech inciting violence and to ensure a realistic prospect of the authors of such comments being held liable, and the moderate sanction imposed on the applicant company, the Court finds that the domestic courts’ imposition of liability on the applicant company was based on relevant and sufficient grounds, having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the respondent State.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > The decision stipulates that a fine of 320 EUR for a large commercial provider in a case where it took weeks to take down extreme occurrences of hate speech does not violate fundamental human rights. Lol. Says the guy that complains about a misleading title and writes posts that are just as bad, if not worse. Kettle, meet Pot. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/06/16/the-delfi-as-vs-estonia-judgement-explained/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/06/16/the-del... > Some weeks later L requested that some 20 comments be deleted and damages be paid. Delfi removed the offending comments the same day, but refused to pay damages. Yeah, yeah it does violate fundamental human rights when a "notice-and-takedown" system is not sufficient legal protection for a neutral intermediary. Frankly, if you cannot figure out how easy this would be to abuse against Estonian websites...I'm sorry you have such limited imagination. Its a deficiency you should look into because "legal attacks" are just as valid as any other security problem and the ability to generate large quantities of hate speech is technically simple and easy to use as comment spam. The moment someone starts doing that is the moment pretty much every Estonian site has to stop accepting all UGC.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    Except that the actual legal judgement went to great lengths to avoid setting that kind of wider precedent by pointing out their judgement applied because the publisher was a large commercial publishing venture that, in the view of the court, could reasonably have been expected to be more proactive in moderating the comments on that particular article based on its subject matter and an apparent "general reputation of comments on the Delfi news portal" as well as the fact it was selling advertising on dedicated comment pages. It also made a point of ruling the fine was proportionate because they couldn't perceive it as having any impact upon its business model, which already includes a moderator team removing >20,000 inappropriate user generated posts per month.... I don't think the decision of the Estonian courts was a good one for a number of reasons, but I can also see why a supranational human rights court could have great trouble seeing why they should overturn it to defend a corporation from a small damages claim for UGC it had profited from and did not attempt to defend as legitimate speech.
pgeorgi 11y ago
The ECHR is no EU institution, and it didn't take any violation of EU law into account because that isn't its purpose. Whether that Estonian law (and the implementation) is in accordance with EU law (some argue it isn't) would be a matter for the ECJ.

arrrg 11y ago

The zeal with which some people view free speech is really quite adorable. I don’t think it’s really so important. (It is important, sure, just not that important. And limiting free speech is certain a-ok with me, within limits.)

fweespeech 11y ago
Very well. Stop posting completely on HN because HN is now liable even if it takes down hate speech within 24 hours of notification if it was run by an Estonian and/or had connections to Estonia [say via e-Residency]. Its cute how people are ready to sell other groups of people down the river without accepting the broader implications.
mikerichards 11y ago
That's a horrible, immoral ideology you have there, but I'll defend your right to spew it.

Xylakant 11y ago

You're pretty harsh with your judgement. The decision stipulates that a fine of 320 EUR for a large commercial provider in a case where it took weeks to take down extreme occurrences of hate speech does not violate fundamental human rights. The relevant quote from the judgement: Based on the concrete assessment of the above aspects, taking into account the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the present case, in particular the extreme nature of the comments in question, the fact that the comments were posted in reaction to an article published by the applicant company on its professionally managed news portal run on a commercial basis, the insufficiency of the measures taken by the applicant company to remove without delay after publication comments amounting to hate speech and speech inciting violence and to ensure a realistic prospect of the authors of such comments being held liable, and the moderate sanction imposed on the applicant company, the Court finds that the domestic courts’ imposition of liability on the applicant company was based on relevant and sufficient grounds, having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the respondent State.

fweespeech 11y ago
> The decision stipulates that a fine of 320 EUR for a large commercial provider in a case where it took weeks to take down extreme occurrences of hate speech does not violate fundamental human rights. Lol. Says the guy that complains about a misleading title and writes posts that are just as bad, if not worse. Kettle, meet Pot. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/06/16/the-delfi-as-vs-estonia-judgement-explained/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/06/16/the-del... > Some weeks later L requested that some 20 comments be deleted and damages be paid. Delfi removed the offending comments the same day, but refused to pay damages. Yeah, yeah it does violate fundamental human rights when a "notice-and-takedown" system is not sufficient legal protection for a neutral intermediary. Frankly, if you cannot figure out how easy this would be to abuse against Estonian websites...I'm sorry you have such limited imagination. Its a deficiency you should look into because "legal attacks" are just as valid as any other security problem and the ability to generate large quantities of hate speech is technically simple and easy to use as comment spam. The moment someone starts doing that is the moment pretty much every Estonian site has to stop accepting all UGC.
- notahacker 11y ago
  Except that the actual legal judgement went to great lengths to avoid setting that kind of wider precedent by pointing out their judgement applied because the publisher was a large commercial publishing venture that, in the view of the court, could reasonably have been expected to be more proactive in moderating the comments on that particular article based on its subject matter and an apparent "general reputation of comments on the Delfi news portal" as well as the fact it was selling advertising on dedicated comment pages. It also made a point of ruling the fine was proportionate because they couldn't perceive it as having any impact upon its business model, which already includes a moderator team removing >20,000 inappropriate user generated posts per month.... I don't think the decision of the Estonian courts was a good one for a number of reasons, but I can also see why a supranational human rights court could have great trouble seeing why they should overturn it to defend a corporation from a small damages claim for UGC it had profited from and did not attempt to defend as legitimate speech.

pgeorgi 11y ago

The ECHR is no EU institution, and it didn't take any violation of EU law into account because that isn't its purpose. Whether that Estonian law (and the implementation) is in accordance with EU law (some argue it isn't) would be a matter for the ECJ.