ABSTRACT

This article examines questions relating to the appropriate role of digital intermediaries in regulating online terrorist-related content and the extent to which proponents of human rights should be concerned with the free speech implications of intermediary liability, through a comparative analysis of recent developments in Europe and the United States. While Europe is contemplating introducing compulsory frameworks to regulate intermediaries, the United States is continuing to apply existing frameworks that incorporate traditional notions of harm and causation and immunise intermediaries for the expression of third party users. Ultimately, this examination leads to the conclusion that compulsory regulation of intermediaries for online terrorist-related speech creates significant dangers to the exercise of free speech, the effects of which ripple far beyond the terrestrial borders of those jurisdictions engaging in such regulation.

摘要

本文通过对欧洲和欧洲最近的发展趋势进行比较分析，研究了与数字中介在规范与恐怖分子有关的在线内容中的适当作用以及人权支持者应在多大程度上关注中介责任的言论自由问题有关的问题。美国。尽管欧洲正在考虑引入强制性框架来规范中介机构，但美国仍在继续采用将传统的损害和因果关系概念纳入其中的现有框架，并免疫中介机构以表达第三方用户。最终，这项检查得出的结论是，对与恐怖分子有关的在线言论进行中介的强制性监管，对言论自由的行使构成了重大危险，