Search

Defamation through social media is regulated in Article 27 Paragraph (3) of Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions as amended by Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions. In fact, the article seems to be a rubber article because it can easily be applied, especially to events that actually fall within the scope of ordinary disputes between individuals through social media or limited to reality stories that then make personal offenses that are considered an attack on honor / good name. This then became a polemic in itself in the community because of the application of articles that are multiinterpretive without paying attention to the scope of events. The problem examined in this study is how the criminal provisions according to Article 27 (3) of the ITE Law and the limitations of the application of article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law. As a form of problem solving for the polemic that continues to occur, on June 23, 2021, the government issued a Joint Decree of Criteria Guidelines. Implementation of the Law on Information and Electronic Transactions (SKB UU ITE). This decree was signed by the Minister of Communication and Information, the Attorney General and the Chief of the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia, which is expected to be a law enforcement guideline so that there is no multiinterpretation of the implementation of the ITE Law which previously became a rubber article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on online racialization and colorblind content policies. It focuses on the inadequacies of current content moderation, particularly colorblind approaches, which they argue fail to address systemic online racism. It advocates for a shift to color-conscious moderation, considering historical context, and proposes three approaches to effectively reduce hate online.

Conflicts of laws in cross-border defamation cases are politically and culturally sensitive and their resolution has always been difficult. But the ubiquity of the internet has increased their frequency, complexity, and intensity. Faced with the realities of the online environment—including the virtual disappearance of national borders—several countries have acted unilaterally to preserve their values and protect their interests. Some countries enacted laws favouring consumers or other potential plaintiffs, while other countries took steps to protect potential defendants, including publishers and internet service providers. As a result, these conflicts are now more contentious than ever before. We believe there is a better way—even-handed multilateral action rather than self-serving unilateral action. In this article, we advance two proposals for multilateral action. The first is a set of soft law principles in the form of a resolution adopted by the Institut de Droit International in 2019. The second is a proposed Model Defamation Convention. After presenting and comparing these two instruments, we apply them to two scenarios derived from two leading cases (the first and one of the latest of the internet era) decided by courts of last resort. The first scenario is based on Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick, which was decided by the High Court of Australia in 2002. The second is based on Gtflix Tv v. DR, which was decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union at the end of 2021. We believe that these two instruments would produce more rational solutions to these and other cross-border defamation conflicts. But if we fail to persuade readers on the specifics, we hope to demonstrate that other multilateral solutions are feasible and desirable, and that they are vastly superior to a continuing unilateral "arms race." In any event, we hope that this article will spur the development of other proposals for multilateral action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the jurisdictional rule x in the conflict of laws that should be the appropriate basis for courts to hear suits regarding Internet defamation. Topics include the impact of using a technical approach to searching for this jurisdictional rule on progress in the area of Internet defamation, the breach of obligations that arise in defamation cases especially where financial interests are evident, and the implications of torts and commerce in the context of defamation.

A significant number of adolescents and young adults are targeted by online hate speech. The effect of such hateful utterances can involve severe psychological harm, especially for youths who have to master developmental tasks. Therefore, drawing on criminology's routine activity theory, this study investigates the factors that help explain why youths become victimized through online hate speech. We conducted a national quota-based quantitative online survey that was representative of adolescent and young adult online users (N = 1,180). In the results, we identified six latent profiles of young targets with overall high or low online hate speech victimization, victimization due to gender, migration background, religion, or political engagement on behalf of the queer community. While relative subjective deprivation, political participation, and lower digital media literacy positively predicted overall victimization through online hate speech, being targeted was more likely for members of the aforementioned social groups and those showing political engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the wider effects of harmful speech in the U.S. It mentions the legal themes described here take on a new resonance in an era of social media and Internet journalism. It also mentions drawing equally on the imperatives of a bygone legal system and on the best practices of visitors to madhouses, we must develop social strategies to help us repair the human wreckage created by social media.

An editorial is presented discussing the timeliness and importance of exploring misinformation in Canada in this post-truth age. It outlines that Canada is plagued by the spread of misinformation and online hate, with social and political risks resulting from weaponization by different groups and politicians. The article highlights the need for more research in this area, which has been under-researched in Canada compared to the United States and European Union contexts.

Although technological advancements like the internet have endless benefits to our society, there are also major downfalls. One of these downfalls is the protection of anonymity provided by the First Amendment. The First Amendment's Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to write, post, and share views anonymously. This freedom, in part, is justified by a person being more willing to share and express their feelings or views knowing they are safe from any retaliation. In theory, anonymity can promote the truthfulness of a publication or post by allowing the person to speak freely without any restraint. However, anonymity often leads to false and sometimes hurtful information being put out into the world. Information posted online can quickly be found and shared. When this is used to disadvantage someone, the effects can be catastrophic. When a plaintiff wants to sue an anonymous individual, the plaintiff has a hefty burden to meet. A plaintiff cannot sue an individual without properly serving them, and when a person's identity is anonymous, that is impossible. Because the First Amendment protects anonymity, the plaintiffhas the burden to show there are compelling reasons why the anonymous person's identity should be revealed so they can be sued. Before the identity can be revealed, the plaintiff must prove there is a prima facie case for a defamation claim and there must be a factual and legal basis showing the speech was libelous. The plaintiff must show; (1) the information posted was false, (2) the information was published to and accessible by a third party, (3) the poster acted negligently, and (4) the information posted caused injury. lf the plaintiff fails to show any of the elements, they cannot obtain the identity of the anonymous individual and cannot bring a defamation claim against them. Considering the increase in access and reliance on the internet, requiring the plaintiff to prove a prima facie case before revealing the identities of anonymous individuals is too high of a burden. Cases involving defamation or libel claims are bound to increase because future generations will continuously become more dependent on internet sources. A defamatory online post can ruin someone's reputation, career, and personal life, which can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Therefore, it should be easier to get an anonymous individual's identity, sue for defamation, and recover damages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The advent of social media has changed the way society communicates and the way ideas are spread. These new platforms for speech have inevitably pushed the boundaries of the law, particularly in the area of defamation. Social media has created new types of speakers, new publication methods, and easier ways for people to defame each other. This Comment examines existing constitutional and North Carolina-specific defamation law, explains how defamation law has evolved in the 21st centwy, provides a focused description of two types of social media users in 2020, and proposes a way for North Carolina courts to adapt current standards to these new speakers in a way that continues to protect speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how the U.S. Supreme Court failed to modernize defamation law to include the use of social media and online sources in its decisions in the cases Gertz v. Robert Welch and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

States around the world are struggling with illegal and hate content online. As one of the first Western democracies to do so, Germany passed the Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks (NetzDG) to tackle illegal and hate content online. The idea of the Rechtsstaat played a decisive role in the preceding policy discourse. Building on discursive institutionalism, this study analyzes how different actors used the Rechtsstaat to support or oppose the NetzDG. For this, it conducted a thematic analysis of 68 documents produced during the policy-making process in Germany from 2015 to 2017. The study shows that political actors used five different facets of the Rechtsstaat idea to support or oppose the NetzDG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on challenges surrounding and prevention of social media threats in the U.S. It informs on issues of hateful and threatening speech in social media; overcriminalization of speech and defamation protected by the First Amendment to U.S. Constitution; and U.S. Supreme Court case Elonis v. United States addressing the same.

If an individual or company is defamed online, they have two options to resolve the dispute, absent a technical solution. They can complain to an intermediary or launch a civil action. Both are deficient for a variety of reasons. Civil litigation is often unsuitable given the nature of online communications (across different platforms, jurisdictions, involving multiple parties, and spread with ease), the length and cost of litigation, and the ineffectiveness of traditional remedies. Intermediary dispute resolution processes can sometimes be effective, but lack industry standards and due process, place intermediaries in pseudo-judicial roles, and depend on the changeable commitments of management. At its core, the problem is the high-volume, low-value, and legally complex matrix of online defamation disputes. In this article, I ask: Are there alternative ways to resolve disputes that would improve access to justice and resolution for complainants? The key to resolving some of these problems, I argue, is revisiting the basic issue of what complainants want in the resolution of a defamation dispute and then connecting this with innovations in dispute resolution. Ultimately, I recommend the creation of an online tribunal as a complement to traditional court action. In coming to this conclusion, I explore various issues and proposals for reform, including the challenges wrought by online defamation, what defamation claimants want when they sue, the role of technology in resolving such disputes, streamlined court processes, online dispute resolution, and the regulatory role of intermediaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the opinions and perceptions of internet users regarding online hate speech, and bring cyberhate to the attention of internet users and policy stakeholders.Design/methodology/approach A sectional research design and survey method was adopted throughout the study to examine the opinions and perceptions of internet users regarding cyberhate by descriptively exploring the existing situation from various perspectives. The participants of the study were determined by purposive sampling methods to attain maximum variety among internet users who are considered as highly literate in technology use. The data were collected through a personal data form and a survey (Cyberhate Perception Scale) from 372 internet users living in Turkey and the USA.Findings The findings of the study revealed that the majority of participants do not perceive cyberhate as a part of freedom of speech and they believe that online hate behaviors, which they also consider to be a violation of human rights, should be deemed illegal and be punished accordingly. The findings, which were discussed in line with the existing research, indicated some significant predictors of internet users’ perceptions on cyberhate.Originality/value As cyberhate is an understudied area that raises concerns in terms of internet user exposure, the objective of this research is to understand tendencies about the opinions and perceptions of internet users regarding online hate speech, and bring cyberhate to the attention of internet users and policy stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing body of literature on whether or not online hate speech, or cyber-hate, might be special compared to offline hate speech. This article aims to both critique and augment that literature by emphasising a distinctive feature of the Internet and of cyberhate that, unlike other features, such as ease of access, size of audience, and anonymity, is often overlooked: namely, instantaneousness. This article also asks whether there is anything special about online (as compared to offline) hate speech that might warrant governments and intergovernmental organisations contracting out, so to speak, the responsibility for tackling online hate speech to the very Internet companies which provide the websites and services that hate speakers utilise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social media users collectively register billions of "likes" each and every day to the endless flow of content posted on social networking websites. What an individual user actually intends by the quick click of the "like" button may vary widely. Perhaps she is conveying acknowledgement but not agreement. Maybe he is expressing support but not acceptance. Within the social media context, short-form clicks register the same response. Yet they may be intended to convey sorrow, joy, support, agreement, acknowledgement, humor, or a multitude of other emotions. What a user actually intends by social media "likes" depends entirely on the person and the post. In the evidentiary context of hearsay, however, the intent a user may be held to have manifested by "liking" online content has significant legal consequences. This Article addresses the nuanced question of applying social media "likes" to traditional rules governing the manifestation of adoptive statements in the hearsay context. It focuses on whether a "like" is a tacit adoption of the post itself or a far more casual and less concrete response that fails to manifest adoptive intent without more. Should a statement that would otherwise be excluded as the hearsay statement of a third party nonetheless be admitted as the statement of the individual who merely "liked" the comment? Does a single click manifest a belief in the truth of the online content? Or is a "like" merely an acknowledgement - the online equivalent of a shrug and nod - without more? How does a court discern this question when faced with the offer? This Article endeavors to answer these questions while offering courts and practitioners alike a functional analysis for determining whether social media "likes" may be deemed adoptive statements under traditional hearsay orthodoxy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the “Amendment 9 to Chinese Criminal Law” and the relevant judicial interpretations of China’s Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, this paper studies the subject and objective aspects of the crime of defamation in Chinese computer networks. As for criminal subjects, we have discussed the criminal liability of the forwarders and network service providers of cybercrime. With regard to the objective aspects of crime, we discuss the “fabricated facts” act of “defamation”, the act of “spreading” and the serious circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how federal and state laws do not allow prosecutors to pursue justice for elderly victims in social media abuse cases in the U.S. Topics discussed include need of states should adopt criminal statutes to punish the act of capturing and disseminating inappropriate images of elderly residents; laws governing social media used in elderly victimization; and status of the laws and regulations regarding elderly abuse in long-term care facilities.

The article investigate how prejudicial information about high-profile criminal trials flows on social media in Australia. Topics discussed include Twitter conversations during the high-profile murder trial of Gerard Baden-Clay; prevalence of prejudicial conversations; and doctrine of sub judice that typically addressed two main categories of publications on social media.

Online harassment is a significant and growing problem. Under current conditions, however, economic pressures and constitutional restrictions make actionable change unlikely. This Article proposes a model for community self-governance that may be termed ‘e-judiciaries,’ in which online community members participate in a process of reviewing and disciplining alleged participant misconduct. In support of this model, the Article examines quantitative and qualitative data from a major online community that has adopted this approach to self-regulation. Empirical analysis suggests that this regulatory design leads community members to adopt an aggressive approach to policing harassment. Such a system, expanded more broadly into other online communities entailing high amounts of user-generated content and activity, has the potential to work as an effective anti-harassment countermeasure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the laws governing online defamation in the U.S. Topics discussed include Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy court case on the same; enactment of Communications Decency Act of 1996 for addressing regulating pornographic material on the internet; and interpretation of section 230 of the Decency Act by the courts.

Social-media libel cases require courts to map existing defamation doctrines onto social-media fact patterns in ways that create adequate breathing space for expression without licensing character assassination. This Article explores these challenges by investigating developments involving two important constitutional doctrines--the so-called opinion privilege, which protects statements that are unverifiable or cannot be regarded as stating actual facts about a person, and the actual malice rule, which requires defamation plaintiffs who are public officials or public figures to prove that the defendant made a defamatory statement with knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, its falsity. Given the critical role these two constitutional doctrines play in protecting free expression, it is especially crucial that courts apply them in social-media cases with due regard for the unique aspects of the medium. This article's analysis of early social-media cases reveals that many--though by no means all--courts addressing these cases appreciate that social media are different than the media that preceded them. However, some of these courts have floundered in adapting constitutional doctrines. The Article addresses the most difficult new issues faced by courts and offers specific prescriptions for adapting the opinion privilege and actual malice rule to social media. It recommends that the opinion privilege be applied based on a thorough understanding of both the internal and external contexts of social-media expression and that this broad reading of the opinion privilege be offset by a narrow reading of actual malice in cases involving delusional or vengeful social-media speakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the problem of cyber harassment and its destructive impact on victim's lives. Topics discussed include what constitute a cyber harassment which involves persistent and repeated course of conduct targeting a specific person, the type of law which can be applied to address cyber harassment such as criminal and civil rights law, and the role of the First Amendment.

Antitrust enforcement and competition policy in the digital economy is high on the agenda of authorities and policymakers. The distinctive features of digital markets and the strategic role played by large platforms apparently require a rethinking of the antitrust regime. Several reform proposals point to the need to integrate the antitrust toolkit with ex ante measures since there is a risk that ex post enforcement would be too slow to successfully keep markets competitive and contestable. The aim of this paper is to investigate whether the invoked regulatory approach reflects the distinctive structural features of digital markets or whether it is just an enforcement short-cut. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to analyse the liability of Internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content. In the absence of any statutory law relating to online defamation, the courts in India have had to rely upon comparable developments in the United Kingdom to define the contours of liability of the intermediaries for facilitating the publication of defamatory content on the Internet. However, affixing liability on intermediaries in the absence of similar statutory immunities provided to them under the UK law may prove prejudicial to the intermediaries. Therefore, this article argues that India should enact a comprehensive law to statutorily limit the grounds on which liability may be imposed on Internet intermediaries for hosting online defamatory content. This article further argues that India should adopt and codify the 'notice and notice plus' approach to intermediary liability as it ensures that intermediaries are not held liable as publishers for hosting the defamatory content, but in the meantime are also encouraged to take active steps to ensure effective justice to the victims of online defamation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the decision of Minnesota Court of Appeals and Supreme Court in several cases related to criminal law. The case discussed include State v. Justin Kenneth Norgaard regarding arrest for drunk driving (DWI) with approval of use of breath-testing equipment, Spidel Wayne Browder v. State on conditional release applies to aiding and abetting third-degree criminal sexual conduct and State v. Harrison William Rund on sentencing for posting terroristic threats on social media.